Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The current residence of GKG

I'm a bit puzzled by the mysterious statement that the current place of living of GKG is unknown. I know from other sources that previously he lived in the UK and now he lives in the States. What I would like to know is in which state in the US he lives. Or at least if it's near the border with Mexico. As I gathered from reading the article it's been created by his students. Soyou must know where your master live, no? Why is this information secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.104.212 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can we be more sensible about all this and work together

As I said on the New Kadampa Tradition talk page, where Thegone added the same material right at the top of the article, I have for now moved the section in question to under controversy, where it can be looked at over time and edited to reflect both points of view. It is my wish for transparency in this article and even amongst the editors. I for example am a long-term NKT practitioner and have studied in great detail both sides of the divide. I know that those who support the Dalai Lama's ban of Dorje Shugden do feel strongly about the Western Shugden Society demonstrating against him and I understand that, yet at the same time we have to be careful not to shoot the messenger when there is a clear cut case of segregation and persecution in the Tibetan exile community in Tibet. I feel it is an over-exaggeration to blame Geshe Kelsang and NKT practitioners so harshly for supporting the WSS in its activities to bring this to light. I feel optimistic that, over time and with a bit of patience, we can work together to reflect both points of view on wikipedia to do with this and related articles -- avoiding opinion, slander and just presenting facts. Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for presenting propaganda from either side. There are plenty of other places on the internet where people can find pro- and anti- positions. I know there are other editors on both sides of the divide who feel likewise. We are adults, please can we work this out. (Truthbody (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Thegone will not stop. He will not listen to anybody. He keeps repeating the same allegation that I am engaged in a cultlike campaign and am supported by the chinese, which are both untrue and terrible accusations. Thegone is repeatedly vandalizing these articles, adding long tracts of unsourced material cut and paste from dalailama.com without any discussion. He deletes complaints against him. He is using hateful and unsubstantiated language. He will not accept any edits whatsoever of the material he has inserted. This material does not belong in these articles at all -- if anywhere, it should be put in Dorje Shugden controversy (although it is all covered and discussed there already). Please help. He is breaking wiki codes of conduct. (Truthbody (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Thegone is adding the same sections to several articles without any discussion

He has added a huge section copy and pasted from an anti NKT website called Western Shugden Society unlocked and he has done this without checking with any other editor, without any discussion. It certainly does not belong in this article at all -- if it belongs anywhere, it needs to be only in the Dorje Shugden controversy article (where it is already). I have moved it for now to the controversy section at the end, rather than in the middle of the article, but it is highly inappropriate for it to be covered this extensively and with this complete biased POV in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbody (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is violating the NPOV and is basically edited by the NKT marketeers who undo others. Wiki is not a mrketing outlet. Further NKT is considered a western sectarian cult by many in the west as well as Gelug school leaders and abbots. Kelsang was expelled as a result.

82.35.40.105 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What 82.35.40.105 says is true, inasmuch as the NKT is "considered" a sectarian cult by many. However, there are two sides to every story, and it is equally true that many in the west do NOT consider the NKT a cult. Therefore, to represent only one point of view is where the true bias lies.

Please read other articles on religious traditions on Wikipedia, such as about the Southern Baptists, for example. These pages do not contain disgruntled views from those who have left the tradition and feel it to be unduly controlling, even though such views exist. Why should the NKT articles not follow a similar format? This business of "NKT marketeers" is utter nonsense. Perhaps you just are uncomfortable with views that disagree with your own, and so resort to name-calling? I will not assume that this is your motivation, but this is how it appears to my mind, friend.

Finally, please examine the references Thegone is citing. Not only are they use as reference other Wikipedia articles, the Wiki articles cited have little if anything to do with the content of Thegone's contributions. Rather than assuming NKT students are engaged in foul play by moving this section's placement, examine the actual evidence to decipher where the bias lies. I propose that someone delete Thegone's poorly sourced sections, or at least re-write it with proper citation. I will not delete it myself as I know I will be accused yet again of further "bias" -- and perhaps indeed it is inappropriate for me to be the one deleting it. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

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

I deleted the passage of Patrick

I deleted

In response, it is pointed out by NKT followers that Trijang Rinpoche is the root Guru and Spirtual Guide for Geshe Kelsang, and the recent lineage Gurus for the NKT are therefore Geshe Kelsang, Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche. NKT literature states that any praise to Geshe Kelsang in their publications is put there at the request of Geshe Kelsangs students.

According to Kay NKT followers couldnt provide any reason for that removal and exchange of the lineage Gurus. Also he stated that new members of NKT are unaware of the history of NKT and this is clearly belonging to Patrick who added this passage to justify GKG removal. I would agree to rewrite this point. regards --Kt66 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

kt66 aka Tenzin Paljor

Just so you know, kt66 has a personal agenda to undermine the New Kadampa tradition and is an ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. As Tenzin Paljor, he has been on chat groups and blogs all over the internet for years trying to persuade people to abandon the New Kadampa tradition and Dorje Shugden. Please therefore be on the look out for potential POV bias and disinformation in his edits of this article or any article to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang, or the New Kadampa Tradition. (Wisdomsword (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

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

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

Steven Wass,

I have received your email message. You have destroyed the NKTs reputation and the power of all NKT Resident Teachers. Through your actions so many ordained Teachers have disrobed following your view which is opposite to Buddhist view – you tried to spread a sexual lineage which you yourself created. Even in society a Teacher cannot have sex with students. After you left many people confessed to me that you had had sex with them. You had sex with so many students and through your deceptive actions one nun tried to commit suicide because of your sexual behaviour towards her.

Because the NKTs reputation and power of the Resident Teachers has been destroyed by your activities now the future development of the NKT will be difficult both materially and spiritually. However, I myself and all my students are working hard to recover the damage you made. We will never allow your sexual lineage to spread in this world.

I have no connection with you.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

(20040302 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Avanze edit

Hi there, I hope you are well. Can you please explain your latest edit, why is it contradictory? Maybe beings in a Pure Land can send eminations to help other people? Is it possible to prove that they can't?

Thanks Patrick --Patrick K 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I revised some passages on the basis of kays research. I think the article has to be revised more and also references should been included. I balanced the point of the dedications which you pointed out here. --Kt66 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I have just added where this information came from, and a bit more info on the requests to Geshe Kelsang bit.

Cheers

Patrick --Patrick K 09:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

hi patrick. see Kays research What Kays recognized on the removal of his dedications and and lineage holders is a fact which is recognizeable by mere checking it. There is no need to remark this is a belief or a saying of David Kay. Thats why I reverted that passage. Also the emphasize on Trijang Rinpoche is not really correct. Allthough GKG emphasizes his relation to him. GKG had of course different techaers (!) which he normally do not talk about and never he had the close relation towards Trijang Rinpoche like HHDL. Thats why I remarked your addition as a opinion of NKT. Hopefully you can understand this. However you can improve that remark. But I do not accept to soften the facts on the removals. I will give a link the source of that passage. Have a nice day, --Kt66 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you are well. With regard to my edits just now, where they factually correct or incorrect? I think they are factually correct. Therefore I think I have a right to put them in. Is there anywhere in the rules of Wikipedia which say I can not put a fact into this page? Cheers Patrick

Dear Patrick, thank you for your contribution and work. I am fine. First I'd like to ask you to give reference or more details to the claim: "that Trijang Rinpoche has always been the root Guru and Spirtual Guide for Geshe Kelsang". When he started to be that? When GKG was 8, 12, 20, 30? And what were his other teachers? GKG had different teachers as all the other Geshes and Tibetan Buddhists too. As with your question on the facts: If it is a fact, that "that Trijang Rinpoche has always been the root Guru and Spirtual Guide for Geshe Kelsang" or we have a reference for this, we can leave it there. As with the reference to the removal it is surely a fact, so we can stated as recognized by Kay and there is no need to blurr it. Kay just gives this fact which is surely the case. If there is a doubt on that fact or you find out the opposite than we can balance this. Also Kay does not "suggest" that Geshe Kelsang said this, he states that he did this. Your wish to make clear upon whom this passage is based I put in the reference to his research. I know it is quite hard what he has done but it is a fact that he removed these, as well as he let removed the pictures of HHDL in his centres. However for this I think there is no need to mention this in the article. --Kt66 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for putting up with me, I am really tired at the moment and have lost my inner peace a little, and can not think too straight!! The ref. for Spirtual Guide as Trijang Rinpoche - off the top of my head, Geshe Kelsang says in the introduction to 'Guide to Dakini Land' written in 1990 something like 'These teachings have come to me from my Spirtual Guide Trijang Rinpoche'. I will have to check to get the exact wordings. Sorry, I do not know enough to say 'always', only that I meant that in all the books I have read by him he has said his Spirtual Guide is Trijang Rinpoche and that the teachings come from him - I don't think I have ever read anything where he has said that his teachings that he is presenting come from Ling Rinpoche. This is why I suggested those edits for the time being. As for the removals of pictures of HHDL, from what I can tell he has nothing to do with the NKT, so there is no need for his pictures. All the best and thanks for putting up with me! Patrick

Hi again. You say here - ' As with the reference to the removal it is surely a fact' and 'Kay just gives this fact which is surely the case' . Do you actually know it is a fact - do you have the old and new books with you? For me, the first step to do with this statement from Kay is to see if it is true, so I am going to have a look for the books which he has quoted (if you can help that would be great). Some people have written that the Holocust didn't happen, and that the Sepetember 11th attacks were from the US Government or the Israel Government. So just because someone writes it in a book it does not make it a fact. Of course what he has written may be a fact, I am not saying this didn't happen (I didn't suggest deleating it from this page), just that I feel that both you and I have not actually seen the books he is refering to. Therefore, this is why I wanted to make it clear in my edits that it is 'according to Kays' because I feel that we can't actually verify it at the moment, but hopefully can in the future. All the best Patrick

Hi, I've just added a little edit to try and capture the points I made above. --Patrick K 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, the fact is that he removed the senior tutor of HHDL and Ganden Tripa, Ling Rinpoche, from the lineage Gurus and replaced him by himself. A lineage Guru or the Ganden Tripa is not nessaccarily once own root Guru (or one of once own root Gurus - normally there can be many root Gurus, because you can receive different Tantras from different teachers and this is a common behaviour), but one hold them in high respect. Thats why of course Ling Rinpoche as the present Ganden Tripa (to that time) was added. This humble attitude is common. The removal show the change in the mind of GKG who felt that Ling Rinpoche should be replaced by himself and make clear the split in his mind to the Gelug school authorities. So your addition of "and not Ling Rinpoche, so Kay may be mistaken. Please see the talk page for more details [[1]]." is itself mistaken, so I will remove it. Kay does not say that Ling Rinpoche is GKG root Guru, he just shows the removal to make clear the split. So your sentence is more confusioning than clarifying.

Please Patrick don't mind to much. I am really sorry for you when I read your passage: "I am really tired at the moment and have lost my inner peace a little, and can not think too straight!!" I see what struggle there is in you. For this I am really sorry. My wish is not to make you tired, loose your peace or increase your inside struggle/conflicts. This I am sorry for! You are confronted with this discussions because I and others felt responsible to work out a proper article what NKT is and you and NKT followers feel not good with that and maybe feel to defend some positions and engage in it. Also we have different views on what NKT is and how it functions, so we have a natural conflict in a way. This can be overcome by openness and unbiased. This I try, I do not say I have these qualities. My intention is even more to help necomers of Buddhism to get valid critical information so that they do not step blindly into NKT because they love the books of GKG and do not know much on his past and organisation. If people have proper information they can decide free minded. If critical information based on facts is not there people have no basis to proof their ways. Thats not freedom in a way.

As with the books: surely Kay is in the category of Wikipedia:reliable source and because he clearly states when the removal has taken place there is a high degree of validity to this information. It seems quite clear that he not took over this information and rather checked it himself, otherwise he wouldn't be able to say when it appeared and when it disappeared. If you whish you can write him an email and ask him directly: David Kay, Doctoral Student and Part-time Lecturer, Department of Religious Studies and Social Ethics, University College of St Martin, Lancaster, United Kingdom, d.kay@ucsm.ac.uk. I do not know if he will answer. What I know that his research is high recognised among scientists and Buddhists too and it would be quite unbelievebale that he didn't check this fact himself because he quotes no external source for this fact, so it must be recognized by his own fieldwork analysis. If we can not come to conclusion I think it is a good compromise to write "According to Kay.." but normally in such situations this is not common.

As with the teachers of GKG: He had of course different teachers. He agreed to have also listen to HHDL teachings but denied to receive tantric empowerments from him. In the monastic system he had many and different teachers, later he choosed Trijang Rinpoche as his root teacher. This is common. Uncommon is to over emphasize one root teacher and neglect all the others. So we don't know who were his other teachers, but there is the possibility too, that he received also Empowermenst from Ling Rinpoche into different Tantras. But because GKG prefers not to mention his other Lamas, we do not really know from whom he received what... However for the passage it is not that important. One person also critically remarked that behaviour some years ago:

"In the news group I am shocked to see how dreadfully Geshe Kelsang has managed to make his western followers completely blind. This often happens especially to those who are newer in Buddhism. In such a wide Buddhist world, he together with his administrators systematically make his innocent followers limit themselves to believing principally himself, GK, and secondly, Trichang Rinpoche and Kyabje Phapongka. In order to support his claim to represent a “pure Gelugpa lineage” he makes out that Trichang Rinpoche and Kyabje Phapongka are also acceptable (it is interesting to bear in mind that these two important lamas are no longer with us to support these claims). He makes his followers believe that he and these 2 lamas are the only important figures representing pure Gelukpa lineage. He ignores hundreds of other Geshes and Rinpoches of his time from his own and other monasteries. This intentional omission also applies to many important Lamas of Trichang Rinpoche and Phapogka Rinpoche’s time. All of the Geshes are equal to or often more eminent than GK, and at least no worse than GK, as far as attitude is concerned. He initiated a battle for private center organization with the pretext of a lineage and faith in a root guru."see [2]

Cheers and many regards. I wanted to make a pause but came back to chekc this discussion. However, I try to go on with my pause and hopefully you can understand my changes to your changes, please feel free to disagree if you see no reason in this. Take care, --Kt66 11:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I added and "other Gelug teachers". The reason is: GKG acknowledged that he received teachings by HHDL but denies to have received Tantric Teachings from him. GKG does not tell on his other teachers and from whom he received empowerments besides Trijang Rinpoche, but it is obvoius that he had different teachers in his Gelug education because Trijang Rinpoche did not taught Geshe Kelsangs Geshe classes and it is common to receive different techings and empowerments from different teachers but focus on the one most inspiring to oneself for the own practice. Also one of GKG'S teacher must be Zong Rinpoche too, because he gave empowerments during the stay of GKG at Majushri Institute when it still belonged to Lama Yeshe. But if he took part is not for sure to me. --Kt66 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate sources

I have removed and rewritten several section of the article which were based on inadequate sources per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:LIVING. WP requires more reliable sources than a letter posted by some unknown individual on a free Geocities-hosted site. And USENET/Google groups posts are definitely not allowed as a source of information. Please find better sources if you wish to include the alleged expulsion from Sera Monastery in the article. Reliable sources would include published books, academic or other vetted journals, or official Sera Monastery publications, including their official website if they have one. Short of these sorts of reliable references, WP:LIVING prohibits the inclusion of negative information in the biography articles of living people, or for that matter, elsewhere on WP. Ekajati 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss what passage you with what reason can not rely on. The letter of Sera is a public letter and mentioned also in scientific works. Please do not cut the work of the many editors coming to a conclusion by mere changing as you like:

WP Guideline:

All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. During the edit, if doing so over an extended period of time, the inuse tag can reduce the likelihood of an edit conflict. Once the edit has been completed, the inclusion of an edit summary will assist in documenting the changes. These steps will all help to ensure that major edits are well received by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your consideration, --Kt66 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, material published on free hosted websites such as Geocities is not permitted. Neither is blog, Google group, Yahoo group, mailing list, or other internet forum. I removed material which was only supported by such "references". If you wish to support this information, you will have to find books or journals and cite them. Only the most reliable and reputable sources are permitted for negative information about living people per WP:LIVING. Editors are required to remove negative information which is inadequately supported. I shall continue to do so per WP policy. Ekajati 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: The Sera Letter is an official document and is used in scientific works too, it is also acknowledged by Kelsang Gyatso. So I revert once more and please lets discuss point by point and don't offer an instant reversion of the article. --Kt66 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not good enough to assert that. You must cite a reputable source. Ekajati 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok do what ever you like. Another will do the work. I have done enough. Take care. --Kt66 20:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not bothered to read the official policy on the biographies of living people which I have pointed out many times. It's all in there. Ekajati 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to discuss the paragraphs step by step here at the talk page. However I will make a month pause at WP --Kt66 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me my feelings towards your actions were more reliable than my common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekajati -- Nevertheless all the best and thank you very much. Regards --Kt66 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

rewrite of the article

I will rewrite the article. Is was a product of many editors and their discussions, now the basis of the article (like publications of Geshe Kelsang at google.group and the publication of the Expulsion Letter by Thubten Gonpo) was removed from the article and other sources and remarks have no qualified published source (like the statements of Geshe Kelsang on his past), so I will all this remove and ask other who wish to re-include it by giving sources accepted by WP Rules. I will add sources published according to WP rules. Thank you for your consideration, please fell free to discuss, oppose and contibute to improve the article. --Kt66 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is more work needed for the article to improve it. Take it as a start. --Kt66 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please care that the article is balanced. I concentrated more on the controversies. I just added BBC. To not tend to let the article become too onesided I abstain from putting in the article the critical notes of David N. Kay about his policy after the retreat and let there just the statement of NKT. The critical notes on the retreat were included in the NKT article still - as far as I remember. It would be nice if more engage to imrpove the article and care for its balance. Thanky to all the editors. --Kt66 10:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at

Hi Ekajati, it would be fine if you can have a look at Geshe Kelsang Gyatso if the article is fair, unbiased uses proper language and leave your comment for improving it there. Thanyk you, --Kt66 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better!!! Thanks to you and Hanuman Das! Looks like you both did a lot of work over the weekend! Ekajati 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

bibliography

I'd like to suggest adding a section entitled 'bibliography' and list all of the books written by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I think this is fairly standard practice for a biography. Regards Excellentone 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

nice. just do it. --Kt66 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

POV "One of the strongest tenants of Buddhism is to never forsake your teachers teachings."

some NKT follower stated (and I removed it from the article):

One of the strongest tenants of Buddhism is to never forsake your teachers teachings. Both Geshele Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama had the same teacher, Geshele has never forsaken Trijang's teachings, therein lies the conflicts listed below. Trijang demanded Geshele go to the West, to preserve the pure lineage teachings, which he understood would be extinguished in Tibet. We are all Buddha's in the makeing. Do not make up your mind about this mountain of compassion without meeting him personaly. If you should ask him in person, if he is the "third Buddha" his answer will be laughter.68.164.2.147 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Dwain Kitchel(a poor example of a student of NKT and this wise teacher)

some points to the content of this POV:

Where is the quote in the scriptures for your claim:

One of the strongest tenants of Buddhism is to never forsake your teachers teachings.?

This claim is not in the Buddha's teaching or in a teaching of the Indian masters nor is it in one of Tsongkhapa's teachings. The Buddha's teaching (see Vinaya) as well as that of Tsongkhapa (see his commentary on Guru reliance) state, when the teaching of the teacher is not in accordance with the Dharma forsake it, don't follow it. Never they taught to follow wrong teachings or errors. Shugden practice can be seen as against Buddha's doctrine (if one sees it as secterian - sectarianism is always against the doctrine of the Buddha, see the scriptures) or can be seen as in accordance with what the Buddha has taught. What you'll see depends upon your discriminating intelligence (wisdom) and ability to have valid recognitions. When the Dalai Lama understands this topic on Shugden different and even better than one of his earlier main teachers, than this is a common thing in Buddhism and it is wished for, that the desciple becomes more wise than his teachers. This happened many times in the Buddhist history. Just study the biografies of past masters. There is an example of one of the Lorig and Tarig lineage masters (when I remember correctly it was Dharmakirti) who had heard the teaching on logic (Dignaga’s Pramanasamuccaya) from his teacher Ishvarasena. The first time Dharmakirti listend his teacher's teaching he understood it as good as his master did. The second time he listend he understood it better than his master. The third time he recognized the faults in the teaching of his master, Ishvarasena. After this third time Dharmakirti went to his master and said it to him. Then his master replied: Oh you have a better understanding than me, please I ask you to teach it. (So he had no problems that his desciple had a better understanding than him!) For some furthrt examples lets look on a short extract on the Heart Sutra commentry by HH the Dalai Lama. May it be of help!

DEFINITIVE VERSUS PROVISIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Earlier we observed that one of the principal features of the Buddha's teachings is that they were spoken to accord with the varying spiritual and mental needs and dispositions of the listeners. The tenets of the various schools can similarly be viewed as fulfilling these diverse needs. We have just seen how the Mind-only School distinguishes definitive from provisional teachings, and in fact each school has its own criteria for determining whether a teaching of the Buddha is definitive or provisional. In each case, the process is similar: first, one uses analysis to determine the Buddha's ultimate intention in making a particular statement; second, one determines the Buddha's contextual rationale for making a particular statement; and third, one demonstrates the logical inconsistency, if any, that arises when the particular statement is taken literally. The need for such an approach is found in the Buddha's own sutras. There is a verse in which Buddha urges his followers to take his words as they might accept from a'jeweler a metal that appears to be gold: only after seeing that the metal does not tarnish when burned, can be easily cut, and can be polished to a bright shine should the metal be accepted as gold. Thus, the Buddha gives us his permission to critically examine even his own teachings. Buddha suggests we make a thorough inquiry into the truth of his words and verify them for ourselves, and only then "accept them, but not out of reverenced". Taking direction from statements such as these, ancient Indian monastic universities, such as Nalanda, developed a tradition whereby students would critically subject their own teachers' scholastic work to analysis. Such critical analysis was seen in no way to go against the great admiration and reverence the students had for their teachers. The famous Indian master Vasubandhu, for example, had a disciple known as Vimuktisena, who was said to excel Vasubandhu in his understanding of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. He questioned Vasubandhu's Mind-only interpretation and instead developed his own understanding of the sutras in accord with the Middle Way School. An example of this in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is Alak Damchoe Tsang, who was one of the disciples of the great nineteenth-century Nyingma master Ju Mipham. Although Alak Damchoe Tsang had tremendous admiration and reverence for his teacher, he voiced his objections to some of Miphams writings. Once a student of Alak DamchoeTsang is said to have asked if it was appropriate to critically object to the writings of his own teacher. Alak Damchoe Tsang’s immediate response was, "If one's great teacher says things that are not correct, one must take even ones lama to task!" There is a Tibetan saying, "Retain your reverence and admiration for the person, but subject the writing to thorough critical analysis." This demonstrates a healthy attitude and illustrates the Buddhist tradition known as the approach of the four reliances:

Do not rely merely on the person, but on the words;

Do not rely merely on the words, but on their meaning;

Do not rely merely on the provisional meaning, but on the definitive meaning; and

Do not rely merely on intellectual understanding, but on direct experience.

The same is with what Atisha and Tsongkhapa did: they revised the teachings of their teachers and corrected errors and misunderstandings. Atisha when critisised by Serlingpa about his Madhyamaka view answered to Serlingpa, who followed Chittamatra school: What ever you say: I will not give up my view and the more you talk about your Chittamatra view I'll see more more clearly that my Madhyamaka view is correct.

However Atisha was nevertheless grateful to Serlingpa and honoured him as his most important master. You can apply these understanding to the Shugden topic as well.

I found another summerize of some examples to the subject matter and put it here:

Therefore, Arya Vimuktisena, whose teacher was Vasubhandu, saw that Vasubhandu’s manner of explanation of the Abhisamayalankara had been more affected by his own personal bias towards a particular position than being a true reflection of the author’s ultimate intent. He therefore composed a commentary refuting that view, displacing it with a Madhyamaka interpretation. Now was this a case of a corruption of the spiritual guide – disciple relationship on Arya Vimuktisena's part or of him showing disrespect for Vasubhandu? It was neither of these things.

Then we could look at accounts of the relationship between Jowo Je Atisha and his teacher Serlingpa. Serlingpa was the teacher who Atisha himself accredited as the one who helped him most in his quest to generate bodhicitta. In this area, he was like his root Lama. Despite this, on the philosophical level they were at variance. Serlingpa held the Cittamatra view. Accounts have it that Serlingpa congratulated Atisha for his practise of bodhicitta, whilst informing him that as far as his philosophical view was concerned he was incorrect. Atisha said though that Serlingpa’s instructions only served to boost his confidence in the correctness of the middle way view.

Likewise, we have the case of Dharmakirti. Vasubhandu had many students, one of whom was Dignaga. He was said to have been the one who surpassed even his own master in terms of his understanding of Pramana. Dignaga then had a disciple called Ishvarasena. He in turn had Dharmakirti as a student. Dharmakirti heard explanation of Dignaga’s Pramanasamuccaya text from Ishvarasena, but rejected Ishvarasena's interpretation. He then incorporated Ishvarasena’s views as the objects of attack in sections of his Pramanavarttika. Thus, when it comes to helping to clarify the doctrine, creating, and rectifying mistakes, even one's own teacher may come under criticism. One can see it in terms of one's teacher having given certain instructions directed at a few specific individuals (when there is a need to give a different message). Whilst this might generally work though, it would be difficult to square in the above-mentioned case of Vasubhandu. At least in the way that Haribhadra has put it, it sounds as though it was Vasubhandu’s own bias (as opposed to consideration of any particular disciple) that led him to interpret things in the way that he did. Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline. (see http://www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm)

Another view you'll find here:

Based on his realization, Tsongkhapa revised completely the understanding of the Prasangika-Madhyamaka teachings on voidness and related topics that the teachers and learned masters of his day had held. In this regard, he was a radical reformer with the courage to go beyond current beliefs when he found them inadequate.

Tsongkhapa always based his reforms strictly on logic and scriptural references. When he established his own view as the deepest meaning of the great Indian texts, he was not committing a breach of his close bond and relationship with his teachers. Seeing our spiritual teachers as Buddhas does not mean that we can not go beyond them in our realizations. Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche II explained this with the following example.

To make a cake, we need to put together many ingredients – flour, butter, milk, eggs, and so on. Our teachers show us how to make a cake and bake a few for us. They may be very delicious and we may enjoy them greatly. Due to our teachers’ kindness, we now know how to make a cake. This does not mean that we cannot make some changes, add some different ingredients, and bake cakes that are even more delicious than those our teachers made. In doing so, we are not being disrespectful toward our teachers. If the teachers are really qualified, they will rejoice in our improvement on the recipe and enjoy the new cakes with us. (see http://www.berzinarchives.com/bioghaphies/short_biography_lama_tsongkhapa.html)

your claim Both Geshele Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama had the same teacher, Geshele has never forsaken Trijang's teachings, therein lies the conflicts listed below. I feel as contorting and on a very surfaced level. Firstly they had teachers (not a single one) and they 'shared' mainly one of them, the junior tutor of HH the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. When I use the term 'shared' maybe it is useful to acknowldge that GKG had not the same education as HH the Dalai Lama and also was not tutored in private by HH Trijang Rinpoche. Better not to put GKG at the same level as HH the Dalai Lama. Further the senior tutor of HH the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche didn't taught HHDL to follow Shugden, instead he showed people how to follow the Buddhist path without Shugden...in short from my POV the conflicts doesn't lie in "forsaken Trijang's teachings" as you claimed.

I have not the time to argue further, maybe this gives some other perspective to you or the reader and lights the subject matter more differntiated. Regards, Kt66 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your great exposition of my POV edit to the main article. I call myself a "poor student" at the end of signing my name because Geshele would not approve of me being involved with defending his name. It is wasting time i should be studying the dharma, in his correct view. Dwain Kitchel(i have self edited this long winded response of mine, because brevity isn't one of my strengths unless writing poetry) Dwaink 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I will read your reply in the next days. Thank you for your efforts! Regards, --Kt66 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kt66 i must admit to making this reply before fully reading all these sections, i see that you are a former NKTer, but one that has had a bad outcome from that experience. Dwain Kitchel(edited personal stuff) Dwaink 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dwain Kitchel, sorry but personal stuff should be discussed privat or on the usersites. I made the same fault in the past. I have put a short reply to your former contribution at my usersite see here]. Let's please discuss here only what can be improved on the article. It's my fault that I could not resist to make a comment on your statement, however WP is no discussion forum and I will resist to answer personal experiences. Enough has been stated and published at different places, both pro's and con's alike. Many regards, --Kt66 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article makes every effort to "paint" Geshele as someone who represents great negatives: he was thrown out by his abbots, he runs a cult, he has insulted the Dalai Lama, his followers are sheep, NKT teachers are fly paper waiting to trap unwary migrators. Where in the article is the balance to this? Oh some people allow his books to be used? Nothing is mentioned about all of these conflicts being related to the same thing, a refusal to break his vows to his root guru. It is one thing to state his sins and little else, it is quite another to present a balanced article that deals with these issues from both sides. The article allows mention of his expulsion, without ever covering why, how is this correct? How is his expulsion a valid fact? How do you kick out someone gone 20 years ago? He is excommunicated by the abbots? He was a valid community member for 20 years and then suddenly he is not?

Please forgive me, I will answer into your contribution, otherwise I can not see the line of reasoning and all the things you asked. The point is GKG is a full ordained monk therefore he belongs to the ordained Sangha (even when he is just not living at theirs place anymore) and has to follow their rules. The Sangha members are responsible to deal with monks who go against the rules. The precise procedere is laid down in the Vinaya. Of course NKT members don't know the Vinaya and think the Sangha community of Sera made a biase decision. Such claims are for a full monk a heavy transgression (remainder) to insult the Sangha of being biased and deluded when they have raised up such an issue, like expulsion. So he was expelled by the Sangha he belongs to, this is following the rules of the Buddha and as long as GKG is a monk he is a member of the order and should also take part in their Sojong purification ceremony. If he was expelled it is just as it is. Wuotes are there who confirm this. If zou whish for zour own sakie for more you should ask the elder Sangha in Sera for what exact reason they have expelled him. This you can check out yourself.

also: not to following irreligious commands or practices which go aginst the Buddhas doctrine is not breaking root gurus vow. From my understanding and proofing the understanding of "root guru" in nkt is surfaced, distorted and misused maybe you check this out more deeply.

An article that has claim to be unbiased would question that don't you think?

what is biased bz mentionig someone was expelled when it is a fact? Ar facts biased because NKT members don't like them and are biased towards the decision of the Sangha community?

Would it also hold the statement that some sections were being written by an ex NKTer with a terrible bias?? Both of us may tell the same "facts" but by the slant of our telling we may tell two distinct versions of the same story.

what is "terrible bias"? Did I supress any valid source? As long as you are biased you will see all what contradicts your beliefs as being biase. I ask you to add when you have a valid source, I never repressed this. Also the article was written by many, including NKT members, as well as Buddhists not affiliated with NKT or some of their critics as well as by other WP editors...so it is a community result. It can be imnproved all the times.

The representation that he runs a cult, is like me asking you if you are still beating your wife every night? No matter what is answered the insinuation remains, that you beat your wife. You can no more prove that NKT is a cult, than i can prove that you have finnaly stopped beating your wife. I have been a member of this "cult" for nearly 20 years, i come and go as i please, they may remove me from their rolls if i am gone too long, they never have done this, they are always happy to see me back. They send no drones after me to insure that i do not leave the fold, they do not send me death threats if i speak out about my experiences. What sort of cult is that...where is that fact in this article???

that NKT is accused of being a cult, for this there exist different sources, so it has been mentioned. I myself was a member of that cult and see clearly that NKT fits into Margaret Singers criterias for cults which starts to have a person at the head who has noone above him or besides him where members can complain to or who correct him. Maybe you start reading her text: Cults in our Midst, 1995, ISBN 0-7879-0051-6. It is usual that cult members don't feel so. However, even when NKT is no cult, then it has to been stated that these claims at different ocasions have brought up. That's the WP rule.

They remain completely open to these spurious article's attacks, in it anyone who acts as if they wish to promote him are only allowed facts. And yet though there is no proof Geshele has ever said "i am the THIRD BUDDHA", but that unfactual claim is implied by the statement that some of his followers may have said this.

you know GKG uses indirect speech to establish himself as a Buddha and Tsongkhapa. For this you can just remember the Je Tsongkhapa and Shugden Empowerment 2006. There he claimed that Shugden is Tsongkhapa, further that also Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche (two of his lineage masters) are emanations of Tsongkhapa. Before he said this, he claimed: in impure times Tsongkhapa appears as the Spiritual Teacher to lead sentinent beings along the pure path. (http://www.kadampa.org/english/events/festivals/diaries/summer2006/video-en.php see Who is Dorje Shugden?) Is it now clear to you who in NKT is Tsongkhapa at these impure times? If this indirect speech, which he uses often, does not work there are a lot of different "skilful means" to convince his disciples ... I can add more if needed...

It is not a fact, it should be stricken from this article. Have you ever heard Geshele say this? No you have not, because i know you haven't, because he would never say such a stupid thing.

no he is not telling directly as I said he uses indirect speech. hover his desciples will swallow it. Because he also tells: you won't get attainments and no blessing if you don't see your teacher as a Buddha. So what will most "pure" followers do??? So Gen Thubten just stated what NKT followers believed at that time, nowadays the mainbelief is: he is a Buddha and Tsongkhapa, fully accomplished and the like. The Third Buddha calim is in the NKT magazine and is mentioned in Bunting, Lopez and Kay. All four are WP;reliable source and if all four mention it it seems to be considerable. It is also mentioned in the Sera Letter and other sources which are not seen as WP:rs.

He has stated clearly that he never did anything inappropriate about the Dorge Shugden affair in his open letter to the Post, that is a fact.

he stated this but are his claims correct? For instance he told in this open letter the wrong about the fact that there wouldn't have been any conflicts between Shugden followers and Nyingmas, based on this wrong claim he concluded that HHDL has brought up all the problems, and accused him of having created all the problems and dishamony. Is his resoning then valid? Is accusing others and claiming oneself would be free of any faults (in a both sided conflict) the understanding of dependend arising? Further to let wear non-members of the order (NKT monks and nuns) the yellow upper robe and send them to a public protest accusing a high honoured Bhikshu in public of lying is against the Vinaya it is also against the 25 rule of Vajrayana conduct. This can be seen clealy as a fault. Involving naive Buddhist newcomers in such a in-depths-conflicts and informing them one-sided and even wrong can be seen as faults as well. So when one can not see once faults this is is no valif proof for not having made faults. GKG accused HH the Dalai Lama of lying, deceiving the people, longing for control over all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the like - this can be seen also as mere projections of himself as well... No fault? Maybe you read the Shugden article...or visit the site dalailama.com So of course he has done wrong. Who he thinks who he is, when he thinks he has not done wrong? Maybe a Buddha? This claim of him: From my site I have made no faults (implying only the other site has done wrong, 'I am pure whereas the other is not.') I heard also personally fom him when in fact he did, so is he no human being making also faults, like anybody else, as even high-level Bodhisattvas, even the Dalai Lama do??? Is this a humble, self-critical approach? So however. You have to check yourself, Regards, kt66

Yet no where do i see this posted openly. You may think he lied, but you have no proof, why is this fact not listed openly?

you can add. I resrain to add things to WP which are not correct, however even this can be added. But then I will balance it by other sources. It still is mentioned in the Shugden article. I have no problem that GKG sees himself as being without faults in this and other subject matters. This is just his view.

I may list as a fact about your personal life, that some pyschologist listed you as a potential homophobe, only i leave the truth about this spurious accusation on some page 10 link jumps away, where a homosexual friend of yours says that he has been your friend for years and knows that you are not a homophobe. People will think you are a homophobe, before they jump somewhere else to find the hidden truth.

the point is GKG has been accused for different things by the monastic Sangha, by the british press, by the world press, also Namkhai Norbu warns his followers to have contact with NKT members and it is said in another article that also HH the Dalai Lama said NKT would not be Buddhism but a sect (Something like this). I do not know anybody outsite NKT who know the stuff on NKT is seeing the NKT not critical or advises to disconnect from them. The scientist Kay had reasons to describe NKT as fitting in Liftons criterias for fundamentalism and so on. So not just mere some roumours of being homophobe or what ever. Also Lama Zopa Rinpoche refused to accept a follower of GKG as long as he is affiliated with GKG. However there are of course also positive sides let's not forget them. So please include them as well. I watch just that the article tells no lies or controted views and is based on facts and wp:reliable sources.

I can call you a jack booted rascist because i once saw you cut in line in front of Jewish person, and you are German so the idiocy of that lie may stick. The lie that Geshele is a cult leader is difficult to disprove, especially so when the accused has no desire or interest to defend himself or engage here because his beliefs tell him it is a pointless struggle.

not: firstly you can study Singer and understand the critics, seconly it is mentioned in sources different times, thirdly stating the cult claim is not the same as telling: this is the case! It just gives the information that this critic of being a cult has raised up. It let's open if this is the case or not the case, so it is no evaluation.

Still as someone who knows this is not a cult it offends me to no end, it is as offensive as me calling you a rascist. There is no proof, nothing in an encyclopedia that is not fact or statement from the person the article is written about should be included. Remove all mention of him leading a cult and being the third buddha, include both points of view at every mention of an action involved with the Dorje Shugden controversy, if he is to be listed as controversial then so should the Dalai Lama, in the same sentence or remove it. It should state; Because of a controversial ruleing by the Dalia Lama, Geshele is considered by some to be a controversial Buddhist leader.

Maybe it is GKG who is controversial rueling and you are unable to recognize this? Excatly this is what the critics say about GKG. But if you have a quote about that NKT beliefs of "controversial ruleing by the Dalia Lama" which leds to that "Geshele is considered by some to be a controversial Buddhist leader" we can add this view, why not? Although funny, if this is the belief we can add if there is a reliable source.

No where should it state that he is considered by some to be a cult leader, without equally mentioning that there is absolutely no proof of this slanderous statement and in fact no one can find any instance where cult like actions have been taken toward someone. Sure you can say he stripped someone of their standing in "his" right as leader of this group, it is his responsibility is it not? In an opinon you might state that you think he is 'such and such' because of something, in an authoratative article in an encyclopedia this is not allowed, it is all POV and as my addition to the article was removed as such, so should these spurious claims or it isn't an authoritative encyclopedia article, it is a hatchet job by someone with an axe to grind. As it stands it is a hatchet job, and as such it is offensive to me. A good lawyer would make enough money off of the slander in this 'article' to keep NKT going for many years. Wiki should be aware of that. It should be balanced or removed. Dwain Kitchel

when there is "absolutely no proof of this slanderous statement" - as you believe - than if we have a source of such a claim, we can add it in NPOV manner. To make it short: because these are facts that he has been expelled from the Sangha (Monastery), that he was involved denouncing the Dalai Lama and that he has set up many Buddhists and has drawn the media attention, because he has been citizised for overtaking control at Manjushri centre and because he has estbalished himself as the lasting authority in NKT and so on and because there exist WP:reliable sources for this, it is stated here. That's it. If there exist information which tells the opposite of this and belong to WP:relibale sources it can be put in the article. If you have a quote about "a refusal to break his vows to his root guru" just add it. Because a monk belongs to the ordained Sangha and the ordained Sangha is responsible for the members they have the possibility and duty to expell someone who damages the rules of the Sangha. If you want to know more you have to write to the Sera monastery where GKG has belonged to in the past until he was expelled. However this will be a primary source. The quote of von Brück tells a little bit. If GKG has raised up that much controversies it is not the fault of the article, is it? However your welcomed to improve the article. It seems still not to be that good. What are your specific suggestions? The third Buddha claim has been stated in different sources and was stated by his official former successor and also published by the NKT themselves. GKG is skilful enough to establish himself not directly as a Buddha he does it indirectly. Also when NKT announces him as "a fully accomplished meditation master" this is just another word for claiming he is a Buddha. Maybe it is not needed to explain this in detail once more. There are sources for it, so it can be stated. your claim: "Because of a controversial ruleing by the Dalia Lama, Geshele is considered by some to be a controversial Buddhist leader." I can not follow he is regarded as a controversial leader because of his behaviour and controversial deeds. Of course NKT members see it not that way. To balance this we can put in the views of the NKT members of course, this would be a good idea. Do you have some sources for this? Regards, --Kt66 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I joined wiki today, with the cause of clearing Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's name. My first attempts to complete this task, will be to petition wiki to recognize the slant of this article. That because, it rises to the level of unbalanced slander. My suggestions that it be balanced by user Kt66 have included mention of the fact that it states: Expulsed from Sera Monastery, with no link to the the clear fact that this did not occured until after the Shugden controversy. A lay person not completely aware of this controversy would have no indication that a controversial reversal of doctrine was done by the Dalai Lama, before this expulsion happened. They would have no reason to search further links, it seems pretty clearly stated he was a bad monk, and they kicked him out, no reasoning is listed. It is not my duty to balance this statement, i did not make the one sided statement.

for a official reasoning see the Sera Letter at http://www.geocities.com/thubtengonpo/SeraLetter.html we have added that source and the reasonings but someone else said it is not seen as WP:reliable source, so User:Ekajati removed it...so what to do, if there is no other WP:reliable source (besides a very short extract in Lopez' book citing that he was named a "demon" for putting down the Dalai Lama, which I found not that useful.) Maybe we can add that GKG's reply was: he does not take the expulsion to heart, because he felt he is since 20 years not in Sera Monastrery? For this I have a WP:reliable source. kt66

Controversy is implied with no balance as well, not my duty to change slanderous statements to make them unslanderous. KT66 seems to think this is an arguement about Buddhist scholarship, it is clearly the case of slander in a bio of a living person, either he must rectify this mistake or wiki at large must face the possible legal actions.

if you wish changes you can take up responsibility in balancing the artcile this needs work. Threads of legal actions is not wished in WP rules. Maby you check the history what long development the article has and why sepcific passages were removed or are added. So effort has to been made I think, not vague onlz complaints. kt66

Most dangerous is the mention of Geshe Kelsang being considered a cult leader, or claiming himself to be a "God". I use the term God because people who have not studied Buddhism will have no ability to discern the difference of the slander of being accused of calling oneself the "third Buddha". They will think instantly that he is crazy and deluded by this charge. This charge that he is a cult leader is founded in no fact, it is point of view slander. No mediating action has been allowed by the poster to maintian wiki's own policy on negative statements about a living person and fair light, this portray's a good man in a highly charged negative light with no balance and no substatiation of the charges. It is slanderous. I am not going to change it, my attempts to make changes have been met with POV revert, when the statements on this article are exactly that, POV slander with no mediation. So i will seek recourse through wiki's own boards,failing timely response, then with governmental orginizations, newspapers, FCC, law firms and schools until the need for quick remedy is forced on wiki.Dwaink 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Kt66 i have edited out personal rant stuff, am learning this wiki way(brevity) and i will have difficulty with it because this is a long subject. I still stand(after searching and reading)behind my contention that it is slanderous because of it ommissions, ommissions we may never be able to add 'source' wise. Thank u for not "biteing this newbie" while i get up to speed. I think these sections should be removed if source for the other side can not be obtained. I have little doubt what me writing Sera monastery will produce(the party line). This party line will not add to both sides of this issue.Dwaink 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If we can not remove the slander of cult insinuation then i offer some section of this abstract as being inserted to disclaim,define what a cult is or isn't.

we can not remove them I think. This quote is from WP:reliable source, expresses the critics of FPMT members and it even expresses the opinion of some former NKT members as well. But the latter is not stated in the article, because we have (until now) only one WP:reliable source which tells such accusations of a single former member. This will no be enough. What can be done is to try to balance this section. Yesterday I found some passages by Bluck which we could use... I mentioned also below some ideas to balance this section. Regards, --Kt66 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can provide the needed refrences.: Joining a 'cult': religious choice or psychological aberration? From: Journal of Law and Health | Date: March 22, 1996 | Author: Davis, Dena S.

II. What Is A "Cult"?

According to the anti-cult Cult Awareness Network, a cult is "a closed system whose followers have been unethically and deceptively recruited through the use of manipulative techniques of thought reform or mind control."(7) Probably the best definition comes from sociologists Melton and Moore, who explain, only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that "cults are religions that espouse an alien belief system that deviates strongly from the traditional faiths with which most people have grown up."(8) For sociologists, a cult is the starting point of every religion, at the stage where there is simply a charismatic leader and an enthusiastic band of followers, who have not yet developed anything more than the simplest organizational structure. Most cults die before they get beyond this stage; others become more bureaucratized, as happened to Christianity.(9) However, when the term cult is used today, we know that the subject is a controversial "high demand" religion, or some other group which has come to be associated with the term in the minds of the media. As we shall soon see, there is much disagreement even among the most strident anti-cultists as to which groups fit the category. Leo Pfeffer suggests: "[i]f you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps the religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."(10) Meanwhile, social scientists proffer phrases such as "alternative religions," "marginal churches," "new religious movements," and so on. ..........

The second assumption, that membership necessarily entails a pathological state, is also the subject of much debate. On one level, as Melton and Moore point out, this is an a priori argument which does not lend itself to empirical proof. "If one has a religious stance that assumes a person of another faith is either deluded by false teachers or inspired by demonic forces, then a negative interpretation of a person's involvement in a religious group . . . outside the national religious consensus is guaranteed."(49) Melton & Moore, Supra note 8, at 40.Dwaink 01:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

for cult anlayses we can refer to the WP cult and anti-cult links, those I included now...--Kt66

One of the strongest tenants of Buddhism is to never forsake your teachers teachings.?

This claim is not in the Buddha's teaching or in a teaching of the Indian masters nor is it in one of Tsongkhapa's teachings.

The Buddha clearly stated to use discrimination before choseing to follow his path, but once one has taken a spiritual guide and made vows, he is also clear. From the sutra's: "Good man, if one wishes to accomplish the wisdom of all wisdom, then one must decisively seek a true good knowing [spiritual] advisor. Good man, in seeking for a good knowing advisor, do not become weary or lax. And upon seeing a good knowing advisor, do not become satiated. As to a good knowing advisor and all his teachings, you must follow and accord. As to expedient devices employed by a good knowing advisor, do not find faults."Dwaink 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some (authentic) sources with a differentiated and non radical (or naive) Guru-disciple-relationship approach

If you relied to quickly on a spiritual teacher, without taking enough time and having enough knowledge and understanding of proper checking him/them or you recognize that he has to much obvious faults, you can go to a neutral distance to him and have not to follow him further, even when you got Highest Yoga Tantra Empowerments from him. There are different Buddhist sources for this approach, for instance in the Abbriveated Kalachakra Tantra and Jamgon Kongtrul's teachings on Guru reliance. Also physically or mentaly leaving a Guru and following mainly other teachers (maybe because they are more inspiring to you) is not the same as breaking the relation to him, this is a natural act and no problem and happened many times in Buddhism.(!) Because it is natural and quite common, that you may not meet the teacher, with whom you have the strongest connection with, in the very beginning.(!) There are a lot of stories in the biografies of different Buddhist masters, where you can confirm this graduated process of finding one's main Guru. See for instance the example of Gampopa, who followed for 6 years the Kadampa's and then found his main teacher (Milarepa) and combined all what he received from the Kadampas (Lamrim, Lojong,...) with that what was taught him by Milarepa (mainly Mahamudra). Milrepa was happy about this appoach of Gampopa, that Gampopa started to combine these different Dharmalineages and practising them all together, he was further happy that they have met each other and Gampopa started now to follow Milarepa with whom Gampopa had a more deep relation. Further Milarepa made an auspicious prediction that due to this combination of two different lineages by Gampopa, Gampopa's teaching will have more power and will help more sentient beings than Milerepa's could do. (this was taught in that way by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche) So neither Gampopas' Kadampa masters scolded him of leaving them nor Milarepa scolded Gampopa that he left his former teachers; nor did the Kadampa's or Milarepa taught him about the "danger" or "sectarianism" of "mixing different lineages together" and making a "Mish Mash" as Geshe Kelsang teaches, who is presented by NKT as THE Kadmapa master of our time - what a big misunderstanding lies in this naive and blurring NKT claim.... There are so many stories that high masters met their main teacher(s) not in the beginning, that their relation changed (all compounded phenomenons are impermanent, the First Nobel Truth applies also to Guru-disciple-relationship!) and left their Gurus ---- even Tsongkhapa left his first teacher Choje Lama without even to say good buy to him and went for study to central Tibet. Also Dromtonpa left his Guru after his Guru was defeated in a debate by an Hinduist and hided himself (depressed) in a cage. Due to that masters situation Dromtonpa left his Guru (physically and mentally he let him go) - which does not mean to break with him, as still said - and met later Atisha, his main master. Would they have clinged to one master or the first master they encountered and weren't they able to go on with other masters when it was the time of doing so, none of these great masters had been arisen as what they became: great saints... ---- Think about this please and search for more sources! (and sorry for my bad English ;-) However, it is also allowed to completely distance yourself from a faulty teacher. It is much more adviced to distance oneself from the influence of wrong Gurus. Even the Buddha has done this and also Angulimala had to do this and the disciples of Devadatta as well. The Buddha left his masters when he found their doctrine is not of help to him and even he has given up his radical vows of total fasting, when he recognized this extrem has no sense. Maybe you read some texts on this. For the beginning let's hear Je Tsongkhapa:

Je Tsongkhapa warns on faulty Gurus, citing the Ornament for the Essence:

Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows,

who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma,

and who engage in actions that should be forsaken.

Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result.

(see Tantric Ethics: An Explanation of the Precepts for Buddhist Vajrayana Practice by Tsongkhapa, ISBN 0861712900) - page page 46)

or Tsongkhapa's devotional verses:

I pray that in no way I be misled

by unwholesome friends and deceiving Mara

but in care of true spiritual friends,

complete the enlightened way.

May I never fall under the sway

of false teachers and misleading friends,

their flawed views of existence and nonexistence

well outside the Buddha's intention.

May I bring to the path praised by the Buddha

those lost and fallen onto wrong paths,

swayed by deluded teachers and misleading friends.

The head turned by dark forces

hinders experience of the joyful festival

that is the community of the Dharma life.

May I never encounter misleading friends,

in reality the cohorts of Mara.

(see Splendor of an Autumn Moon : The Devotional Verse of Tsongkhapa, Wisdom Publications, ISBN 0-86171-192-0)

Further let's hear the Tantras (because Guru devotion which NKT emphasizes - although outside the common interpretation of Tantra - belongs to the Highest Tantra Class):

The Abbreviated Kalachakra Tantra advised that if disciples find too many objective faults in their spiritual mentors and they can no longer support close relationships with them, they need not continue studying with these teachers. They may keep a respectful distance, even if they have received highest tantra empowerments from them.

For more (for instance the approach in the Kalachakra Tantra) see also: [3]

Maybe you even read the complete book if you are interested in more. Regards --Kt66 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

>>If you have a quote about "a refusal to break his vows to his root guru" just add it.<< In his letter to Newsweek he comes very close to expressing this in his own words, close enough to leave no doubt.

"Many thousands of disciples of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the Spiritual Guide of the present Dalai Lama, have suffered under this treatment but we do not wish to give up this practice because it is a commitment received from our root Gurus, and because we know from our own experience that it is a very meaningful practice for the development of spiritual realizations. So now we are in a very sad and difficult situation." Dwaink 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

so we can add what is there, if it helps. --Kt66 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we have in Lama Zopa's own words proof that Trijang Rinpoche taught and held the beliefs of Shugden Practice. And indirect proof that he never renounced these practices, the same vows he took from his root guru and passed down to Geshe Kelsang. Also an interesting bit about "worry" that these lineage practices might pass away...and to not worry about that because "others" keep that practice alive. How would this be true if Geshe Kelsang Gyatso didn't keep them alive? How can we slander a man for doing what needs to be done?This part of his letter does a magnificent job of tip toeing around this whole Dorje Shugdan subject...stateing both sides.

...."" My root guru, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche; Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s guru’s root guru; His Holiness Song Rinpoche, from whom many of the older students received the initiation of Shugden; and the previous incarnation of Gomo Rinpoche, who has a strong connection with Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa, here in Italy, all promoted the practice of Shugden. They were all aspects of the Dharmakaya.

I myself took the initiation of Shugden from His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche. There were four of us—Lama Yeshe, Claudio Cipullo, Piero Cerri and myself. However, this initiation can be given to only three people at a time; there cannot be four. Kyabje Rinpoche had set up the altar and made all the preparations perfectly—of course, everything he did was always perfect—and was there, waiting for us. After the four of us sat down, he said, “You cannot be four; only three. Whoever has bodhicitta, who has let go of the I and cherishes others, should leave.” Lama shot up immediately. I just sat there like a donkey, as if I were made of stone. So then the three of us, Claudio, Piero and I, took the initiation.

Of course, Lama and I practiced Shugden for many years. That was always the main thing that Lama did whenever there were problems to overcome. At the beginning of every Kopan course, Lama always did Shugden puja to eliminate hindrances. Of course, this was not Lama’s principal practice. His principal practice was bodhicitta, emptiness, clear light, illusory body and so forth. The protector puja was done simply to overcome obstacles.

However, all these lamas giving different kinds of advice are all manifestations of the Dharmakaya. The point is that many great lamas who had incredible qualities and were of unbelievable benefit in Tibet, preserving and spreading the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, advised against the practice of Shugden.

Similarly, His Holiness is of enormous benefit to sentient beings and, furthermore, has taken on the incredible burdens of his position. Therefore, it has become crucial that we support him, especially in his efforts on behalf of Tibet. This is very important and the main reason we changed—why Kopan changed; why I changed [i.e., stopped practicing Shugden]. As I understood how hard His Holiness works and what heavy burdens he has assumed, I changed. How could I be against His Holiness? There was no way. The only thing to do was to support, serve and help him. That’s the main thing.

The next question—and here, I’m just posing hypothetical questions and giving the answers, like the debate texts do—that comes up for some people is that if the incarnation of His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche doesn’t practice, the lineage of Shugden will degenerate and die out. Some people might think this because in his previous life, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche was the main lama preserving this lineage, which had come down through his root guru, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo. To that, I say there’s no need to worry because many other people do the practice, so the lineage will not get lost.

Then, some people say that this practice should continue because it promotes wealth and prosperity in the world. In response, I say that the practice of Shugden is not necessary for wealth. There are many rich and powerful countries in the world, like Saudi Arabia and the USA, that don’t practice Shugden. They haven’t taken the initiation; they haven’t made a commitment to practice. As everybody knows, wealth and prosperity comes from merit and virtue; from the creation of good karma.

After Guru Shakyamuni Buddha left his father’s palace but before he began to practice Buddhism, he practiced Hinduism. That’s not because he didn’t know that Hinduism was not the way. It was to show sentient beings that his first choice was wrong and that Buddhism was the right path.

At one point, when things in Tibet became very difficult politically, His Holiness came to Dromo Geshe Rinpoche’s monastery in southern Tibet. At that time the Tibetan government could not decide whether His Holiness should go on to India or back to Lhasa. So His Holiness and his ministers consulted Dromo Geshe Rinpoche’s monastery’s protector, the one in question. Through the oracle, Shugden said that His Holiness should not go to India. This protected Tibet for another year or for so. What I have heard is that after that experience, His Holiness would recite prayers to Shugden regularly. However, after many years of analysis, when His Holiness was about to take the initiation of Shugden, he received signs in a dream that he should not. As a result, he didn’t take the initiation.

This is the same as what Guru Shakyamuni Buddha did. He first became enlightened inconceivably long ago, not, as history tells us, two-and-a-half thousand years ago in India. According to the Theravada tradition, that’s what happened, but the Mahayana does not accept this—we believe he became enlightened inconceivably long ago. Therefore, as an enlightened being, how can the Buddha make a mistake? He simply practiced Hinduism to show sentient beings that it was the wrong path. This is just what His Holiness did; he practiced Shugden to show us it was wrong."".... http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamazopa/shugden.shtmlDwaink 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

nice. We can include an extract in the Shugden article or here if it helps. However, to make it short, I have also not the time to go once more in a detailled discussion on Buddhist issues (regarding Guru, beliefs, different views to it) with a NKT follower. It is not my turn to follow a not ending debate with persons who mostly only know their own side (one side) of the stories and defend it (besides very rare exceptions) and attack people who do not share their view as being "heavily biased". The rules of WP are quite clear. The facts mentioned in the article have WP:reliable sources and are - from my POV - presented in NPOV manner. If you wish changes please give WP:reliable sources and notes of it, than you can add it to the article. Everyone can iprove the article. I focus mainly on controversial aspects. A NPOV brick is a good idea, so other editors can check the article. Improving and balancing is wished by myself as well so I am happy if you or others artake and you and all editors are most welcome. If you have sources why GKG was expelled than just add it. You are free to add what is NPOV and have WP:reliable sources. This I encourage you. To present here the NKT followers thinking is nice and if there are sources you can add it in NPOV manner. Please note that most of the claims of NKT are based on semi-truths and untruths, however, if there are sources it can be added. I will look to balance "contorted" NKT claims. Regards kt66

I asked just 2 NKT followers and two who are not NKT followers for their help. We see how they will react. Until that you can improve of course where you have soures for. Regards kt66

improvements of the article

BBC has removed the cult claim from their main article, however it is still at the site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/ and there are other sources as well for this. The Third Buddha claim is not only mentioned in NKT Full Moon but also in the article of The Guardian, Kay's research and also Lopez'. The latter wrote: NKT members believe they must obey, worship and pray to Keslang because he is the Third Buddha. Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La, ISBN 0-226-49310-5, University of Chicago Press, page 194. For additional biografical material on GKG we can use also Cozort, Kay and Bluck. Maybe user:Robertect and user:E1 can do this? There is also a neutral documentary of BBC about the controversy in London when HH the Dalai Lama was invited to come there and NKT wanted to reach that the British government should not allow him to come and manifested their demonsatrations against his visit/Shugden "ban". So far regards, kt66

as wished by u:Dwain I added a short sum of the background of the expulsion based on reliable sources. We shouldn't explain it to elaborate, because we have the Shugden article for this and the subject matter is twisted and mixed with semitruths, untruths, mere claimed stuff and personal beliefs and it will be difficult to reach a consensious. What do you think now? Regrads, kt66

added bibliography and his authorship. Also that NKT centers are sometimes mere rooms of members (this is stated also in Bluck). Maybe we can balance the controversy section as done in the NKT article now. We can include for instance the view of GKG towards Lama Yeshe, whom he felt is mixing Dharma with politics and whose 'inclusive' approach he didn't share at all. Also Bluck offers a different alternative view (although this seems to be more his supposition). I will look when I can do this. Maybe another editor who has the sources or other sources can include stuff to balance the article and section. cheers, --Kt66 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

kt66 i hope you had a wonderful xmas/new years season and are quite ready to begin the work of making this article unbiased.Sadly u seem to have missed entirely that i produced a quote from the sutras, that completely disproved your statement that "no where in the sutras is it said not to forsake your teacher".You continue to give examples of 'your' side of this arguement, the problem being that 'your' side of this arguement is amply expressed in this "debate" of a one sided article, nowhere yet do i see 'my' side expressed. I have seen nothing yet that refutes my original statement that you redacted. Perhaps you will agree with me that the common practice of Buddhists past is to learn all they can from one master, and when he tells them they must move on to learn further, then they have all agreed that for the student to progress they must find a new teacher.Have you really the massive Buddhist wisdom to discount Geshele's statement that in his NKT teaching, is all that needs be learned and realized to reach enlightenment? If so then perhaps you are a Buddha? Shall we discuss your Buddhahood? Have you not inside you pure unstained Buddha Nature? Are you not my perfect singular object of Universal Compassion? It must be made abundently clear in this article, for non buddhists to understand this charge of claiming to be "the third buddha", simple links will not suffice....if they would then there should be only links to these "facts" that are used in this article to slander someone i personally know(two years directly in his pressence) to be a good man, a valid teacher and a stainless example of Buddhisim for Western students. How is it that the one man charged by his root guru to come to the West(not India...the West), discover if it was possible to transfer these "PURE" teachings and to do it if possible, the man tapped to keep alive what his spiritual guide saw as: true,pure lineage,powerfully effective,valid steps along the sure path to enlightenment is contraversial in what he has done???? And this lineage thing...ohhh he dropped a name from his lineage list..isn't it true that there need be only one name for a generational member to pass along a valid Tibetan lineage transmission in each generation??? Does it not stand as perfectly reasonable that since this other teacher had taken a stand against his western transformative group(tibet- to modern western society)that he need not include them in this publication, is the pure lineage less valid for his removal?????? How is your fascination with the 'controversial aspects of this man' helping/allowing you to continue to make this article an attack???? You have not made it better, shall i rewrite it from my perspective, since you seem unwilling to do so? My first attempt to start was redacted by you, so i await your correction(not further negative addition-you are aware there is a positive side to Kelsang's work?), my kind teacher. Is anyone else concerned(or understanding) that there will probably never be any "evidence" for my side of the article(the non negative), because this man truely believes his one mistake was to go public about his support for Shugden worshipers he saw as being persecuted for a belief that they had held their whole lives, that the Dali Lama had once been with them on.If your desire for controversy makes it manadtory that controversy hang about Geshele's neck, why aren't you splashing it on HH the Dali Lama's page as well, where it must then be there for equalities sake? How can you question my faculties to discern a valid teacher? Do you not bring into question your own faculties validity by doing so? Who shall fix this? Dwaink 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice thoughts. Just a quick reply to some points:

You are right I didn’t reject the Buddhas teaching you cited, Why should I? What he says makes sense. But the Buddha is teaching here on “a true good knowing [spiritual] advisor.” So if you meet such a person you will gain much benefit. But what is if you see a bad person as a good person and do recognize this later when you have more wisdom than in the beginning? Or what do you do if the good persons gradually changes and becomes worse (as Geshe Michael Roach in the opinion of some Buddhists became)? The Buddha didn’t teach to follow them further. About this subject my citations deal with. So our citations are not contradictory, just different advice for different situations, both presentations are in harmony and make sense. Maybe I was not clear enough, I refuted your generalisation, which lies in the word “NEVER”, when you claimed “One of the strongest tenants of Buddhism is to never forsake your teachers teachings." This is not a general advice for all situations, if the teaching is wrong you have to abandon that teaching! So what is wrong in the statement is the word “never” or apply that advice to every situation. That’s why I rejected your claim. So no need to refute that subject but a need to think from different angles on the subject.

Another point which maybe useful to consider is: the Buddha is also not saying you should only follow one person (as you and Geshe Kelsang wrongly claimed). Instead the Buddha advised to follow as many wise persons as possible, because all their good qualities will become yours if you do learn from them. I can give you that quote from the indian-tibetan Dharmapada. The Buddha said in the Vinaya: "If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it." and in the Dharampada:

Wise ones, do not befriend

The faithless, who are mean

And slanderous and cause shism

Don't take bad people as your companions.

Do not devote yourself

To bad companions and wicked beings.

Devote yourself to holy people,

and to Spiritual friends.

By devotion to faithful and wise people

Who have heard much and pondered many things,

By heeding their fine words, even when from afar,

Their special qualities are attained here.

Since those devoted to inferiors degenerate,

Those to equals mark time,

And those to great ones attain sanctity,

Be devoted to those great ones.

....he goes on to describe that you will rot when following unholy people and not holy ones and that

The devotee acquires the same faults

As the person not worthy of devotion,

Like an untainted arrow smeared

With the poison of a tainted sheath.

Steadfast ones who fear the taint of faults,

Do not befriend bad people.

By close reliance and devotion

To one's companion,

Soon one becomes just like

The object of one's devotion.

...

The wise devote themselves to holy,

Not to unholy people,

...

Wise persons are those who know

Infantile ones for what they are:

'Infantile ones' are those

Who take infants to be the wise.

The cencure of the wise

Is far preferable

To the eulogy or praise

Of the infant.

Devotion to infants brings misery.

Since they are like one's foe,

It is best to never see or hear

Or have devotion for such people.

Like meetinng friends, devotion to

The steadfast causes happiness.

Therefore, like the revolving stars and moon,

Devote yourself to the steadfast, moral ones

Who have heard much, who draw on what is best -

The kind, the pure, the best superior ones.

---

next point:

To reject Geshe Kelsangs one-sided or wrong teachings you just need other teachers who teach you the subject matter correctly. So I have not the wisdom but my wisdom teachers have it.

However, because we are not talking of the article and lead a Buddhist discussion I will stop here. Also it seems to me you are a little bit angry and maybe I should not argue to much. However maybe someone will have benefit from our short discussion on Guru-disciple-relationship. Everyone has to check himself. Geshe Kelsang is not acknowledged by the living wise masters of our time, whereas the Dalai Lama - who is rejected by Geshe Kelsang - is. For me all this is quite clear. We have the choice.... Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.

---

Regrading the article -and lets focus on that - Geshe Kelsang was criticized different times by different persons and this article just names some (!) of these critics, this is all according to WP rules. I restrained to add more, although there is. If you further disagree please contact an Administrator and ask his opinion. However we can improve and balance that section but not remove the critics. As you can see I picked up some of your and E1's suggestions and included them because you both didn't do it. If you have sources you can add every point you wish to be included and what is of relevance. I removed your private and unsourced POV from the article, this is according to WP rules. I am happy if you will add sourced stuff which gives different angles, because this helps that the article is getting better. Thank you for your efforts, so far, Regards --Kt66 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind efforts, how am i ever going to get you to see this?? Kt66 you can not have it both ways. You can not say that you are interested in the controversy surrounding Kelsang Gyatso without also being interested in the controversy as it includes His Holiness the Dali Lama, and every other teacher. So if you are not at HH's wiki page demanding that every controversy be included(and don't smile when you say there are none...because we both know they are) then wtf are you doing here slandering this man. Would you like to get some Chinese posters giving negative remarks(duely ascribed) about controversy surrounding His Holiness? I wouldn't. Because it invites attack. Why attack a teacher you disagree with, i don't see you insulting any of your teachers, that you have now. And wether or not you understand it, publishing baseless charges, without direct(same frickin page<no link>)notation of the opposite side of these charges. Should we be spamming the Chinese internets with calls for negative, verifyable stories about the Dali Lama? No because there is a bias involved, that precludes the evidence(reports) from being useful.Just as the bias you represent is unuseful as a source(they aren't going to say anything for Kelsang Gyatso at all)when trying to avoid casting a negative light on another teacher. Maybe this comes from a Western point of view, from a place of freedom to question leaders actions and deeds. And this Wiki should not be silent on one side of this topic, a crucial topic. If it must stand, this smear here, on this good man,and his fully western teachings. Lest you misunderstand me i have no intention of destructively getting into a revert war on HH's page. I know him to be one of the most highly realized masters of our time, it troubles me to no end that he has turned his back on me. But he is telling me that i am saying the mantra i learned to changes these rocks into food, wrong. My faith in Buddhism makes me shy from that thought. I don't want to starve my friend. This split must end, and if it can't end in far flung corners of the world where the Tibetan Government In Exile has sway, it can end here in the West. Would that the Chinese were reasonable about all of this, but they hate the man that is the political and spiritual leader of Buddhism. A hate that consumes them. We in the West have a right to this tradition(NKT), wether we are Tibetans or not. Geshela himself told me, in somones living room in America, that it "was very important that this tradition be preserved in the west as purely taught by Trijang". I know he was not lying to me, and that there was nothing in his manner or teaching that should cause me to not have faith in this teaching, or his teacher's teaching. I don't want that hate to consume me...this article represents that hate to me still. I can't stand for that, i will be here until it is changed. I am not citing the "press" of Western writers, and monks who remain in this "chain" of command, anywhere in the writen article. You reverted me, you stand by these entries into this bio, if you must have them there, then you must also have the other side of the controversy. Put it in your words if you must, but it must be mentioned on the same level of wiki location as the entrants of controversy are listed. You do it for you, my friend, i will be here waiting. I will also get an admin...68.164.6.126 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Dwaink 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA request

Dear Dwaink, maybe it was a good idea to make this AMA request by you (Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/). We'll see how it develops. Thank you so far for your interest in improving the article. Regards --Kt66 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dwaink, I tried to improve the article by adding the content of the teachings and the view on Shugden of GKG. The latter I balanced in short and referred to the extensive article. How do you see the article now? If you don't like the mentioning of the controversies, this I can understand, but because they existed or still exist (but on a lower level), they have to been mentioned in a non-partisan way. So neither the article should be one-sided or partisan to the critic's view nor to NKT follower's view (likes and dislikes). Of course this is a challenge. That the main content has a critical approach lies - from my POV - more in the controversial stuff around NKT, which is reflected in so many articles and also academical research. Maybe you have further suggestions or material to improve the article. Regarding the use of Kay as a non-partisan, dispassionate, neutral POV, even a NKT member wrote: "Finally a clear understanding of how these organisations (NKT and OBC) are perceived through the eyes of a dispassionate observer I hope will prove beneficial to the organisations themselves who I am sure have a genuine wish to make themselves as beneficial and accessible to western society as possible." (see review at Amazon.co.uk) So, I do not count David N. Kay to NKT critics, but to neutral, dispassionate observers. Other academical researches refer as well to him. Regards, --Kt66 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So maybe it is not perfect as it is now but better and more fair than before...We will see what other editors suggest... --Kt66 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed! Thank you my kind teacher. Still some little jabs but a great improvement!(almost a fair fight...the kind Buddhist's should never have)68.164.6.126 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy. Nice that you appreciate the improvments. We work even together now :-) If you feel that's appropriate you can remove the NPOV check. Regards and thank you for your help. --Kt66 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. The improvements seem to be taking on a life of their own, perhaps this is samsara reflecting itself again? Why does no good deed go unpunished? Dwaink 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course all this is reflecting Samsara. NKT and its's follwers, as well as WP and it's editors are not outside of that cycle. When you have something you think it is of value to mention, just add it. My opinion is: that GKG once sold his car to offer the money to help victims of a famine is enjoyable, but I think not that of value to mention it in this article. There are people with higher donations, which were never mentioned at all. That's why I feel rather embarrassed reading such statements in the public and it is more a kind of advertisement to me. In comparison of the richness of NKT this amount of donation seems to be neglectable. However, what is added depends mainly on the editors (and their preferences and what sources they have and use). So if you have reliable secondary sources of "good deeds" and you feel it is worthwhile to mention them, just add it. Who did punished such trials? Me not. Others and I removed mainly non verified passages. --Kt66 13:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kt66 the expression i used is meant as a way to say 'when ever good is done someone will come along and undo it. You first draft was nice,flawed but nice. I think perhaps it is getting close to a decent flow and form now. I am working on some things that i think still need addition to the "Journey to the west" section, because it still dosen't get across the idea that Trijang sent Kelsang Gyatso to the West, to found/reestablish a tradtion that he feared would dissappear in Tibet<and under fully Tibetan teachers perhaps>. A fully Western tradition,seperate for Westerners<and that is a lot of west, not Tibet or India>in the sense that is founded and made up for their mindsets. My understanding is that Trijang asked/demanded Kelsang Gyatso 3 times to come to the West and do this. I think the first is the Merton(sp) thing in Canada, that fell through,and a second time i know little of except a statement that Geshela made once, that after this second attempt to come to the West fell through(or was turned down)he was surprised by many monks coming to him, with sacred artifacts(texts statues etc) of different traditions, that these monks felt would perish if not transfered to the West. It was my understanding(perhaps wrongly) that these things were not all associated with Dorje Shugden. And this outpouring of other monks convinced Geshela that he must go and do this as his teacher commanded. It is my feeling that this casts the actions of this man in a very different light, one that demands recognition, if not acceptance, and explains some of the difficult actions and positions he has ended up with/in. If his directed purpose by his root guru was to found a distinct tradition(for westerners in the west)and he believed and understood it to be a valid action with no unpure motivation behind it, then i think it belongs here if it can be sourced. We will work together my friend, even if my appearance(and stupidity) makes you see me as not working with you.68.164.6.126 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi68.164.6.126, as long as you can validate your information they can be added in the article if they seem to be worthwhile for the reader. But from my POV there has to be also care by using mere NKT sources. As Kay described, NKT repressed history; and it is obvious that they hide or reinterpret events so that they fit to their view of history. The main argument with which GKG can defend his policies is, that all this what he does was said to him by his Spiritual Guide. But nobody knows if this is the case and the Spiritual Guide himself is dead and GKG does also not accept his incarnation. So there is a huge gap of information and space for spinning. To argue all this is due to Trijang Rinpoches wishes seems to be more a defending argument and there is no validation than GKG/Belithers claims. What we can do: we can add "GKG said that..." but we can not state it as a fact as long as there is no source validating this. However to add what GKG has said about it, needs also a secondary source. You can see yourself how much NKT hid and reinterpreted facts of the history.

• the "Journey to the west" section, because it still dosen't get across the idea that Trijang sent Kelsang Gyatso to the West,

This idea is the idea of NKT history view, it can be added and is still added in the NKT article

• to found/reestablish a tradtion that he feared would dissappear in Tibet<and under fully Tibetan teachers perhaps>.

this is a NKT interpretation. Kay contradicts this idea and explained this as the belief of newer members of NKT who do not have knowledge of the NKT history. And where there is any validation that Trijang Rinpoche did this or had such ideas? Personal I do not believe this claim, do you think Trijang Rinpoche advised to split from the Gelug tradition (in a way a Sangha division)? I do not think he did. The history of NKT in the setting of FPMT is contradicting this idea quite clear. However one can put in the section how GKG/NKT views the own history and how academical researcher or witnesses described it. This would be balanced information.

• If his directed purpose by his root guru was to found a distinct tradition(for westerners in the west)and he believed and understood it to be a valid action with no unpure motivation behind it, then i think it belongs here if it can be sourced.

any validation for this? Do you think Trijang Rinpoche advised a simple Geshe to cut off from the tradition, to split away and creating something new? This is not the masters custom, I think.

I will add Kay here, citation of the pages 82-83:

Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships. (Coney 1997)

Leaderships exclude memories by expelling individual malcontents or by simply not referring to unwelcome historical facts until they 'cease to be part of the group repertoire of memories'. Changing the name of the leader or group also allows memories associated with previous designations to fade whilst promoting the creation of new memories. The project of deliberately excluding histories, however, is not always completely successful because repressed memories 'can return to haunt the margins of a discourse and continue, despite their apparent absence, to influence its structure'. Alternatively, competing versions of events may only become temporarily submerged within the dominant account and may later 'rise again to the surface of the collective memory'.

The NKT is a religious movement in which the dynamics of history construction, as outlined by Coney, are well exemplified. Multiple 'histories' exist on an individual and public group level both inside and outside the move¬ment. As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism the social organisation of memory and forgetfulness especially the group's leadership is particularly striking. Accounts of current and former members either reinforce or contradict and compete with each other. They diverge widely over points of historical detail and often interpret the same events and processes in very different ways, reflecting a wide range of personal experience, depth of involvement, bias, opinion and loyalty. At the level of public discourse, the history and identity of the NKT has also, during the course of its development, undergone considerable realignment. Of course, such revision and reconfiguration of the past is commonplace within religious movements that are more concerned with issues of identity and ideology than with notions of historical veracity.

It is important that the observer looking at the NKT today accounts for the substantial pre-history of the movement's emergence in Britain, examining carefully the forces that influenced Geshe Kelsang's thought and the direction of his centres in the years preceding the NKT's announcement in 1991. Otherwise, there is a danger that the pre-history of the group might be (mis)placed within a narrative of continuity; that is, understood as if the features characterising the organisation today were always part of its outlook. Such anachronistic readings of the group's history are not uncommon among both NKT disciples and non-NKT Buddhists alike, who often place the group's emergence into a simplified teleological narrative, albeit for quite different personal and ideological reasons. Other disciples retain a greater awareness of the complexities of the group's historical emergence in spite of the leadership's attempts, at the public level of discourse, to eradicate certain Unwelcome memories' of discontinuity and conflict by presenting an overarching narrative of continuity.

Individuals who are most likely to place the NKT's emergence within an overarching narrative of continuity fall within two main groupings: on the one hand, certain longstanding students within the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) whose dealings with Geshe Kelsang and the Manjushri Institute terminated in the early 1980s; and, on the other, current NKT disciples whose involvement does not predate the forma¬tion of the organisation in 1991. Both groupings tend to lack an adequate awareness of the historical development of Geshe Kelsang's emergent network during the 1980s, and their very different backgrounds and personal experiences ensure that their assessments are poles apart.

The conflict between Geshe Kelsang and the FPMT in the early 1980s provoked feelings of anger and disappointment amongst many FPMT students, feelings that remain unabated today. These students often explain the emergence of the NKT in terms of the desire for power and prestige that, they believe, motivated Geshe Kelsang first to attempt to 'seize control' of the Institute and eventually to 'steal' it from its mother organisation. The origin of this drive for power is variously explained - as a result, for example, of the excessive devotion he received, upon arriving in England, from naive and undiscriminating Western practitioners; or as a product of his 'Extreme envy' of Lama Yeshe, who was formerly a junior student to him in Sera Je monastery but who had now become the key personality behind a growing worldwide network of centres. The emergence of the NKT is thus described as the growth of a 'personality cult', orchestrated by a 'totally unscrupulous rogue geshe' through the 'cynical manipulation' of students and the 'transference of [their] loyalty and devotion' via the practice of guru devotion.

Current disciples of Geshe Kelsang whose association with him is relatively recent also tend to place the NKT's emergence within a narrative of continuity that bypasses its actual historical development. These disciples, who usually have little or no awareness of the early history of the organjsation, assume that since Geshe Kelsang is an 'enlightened being', the creation of the NKT had always been his intention. They tend to explain the years preceding 1991 as a penodf in which he Carefully and deliberately planned, prepared and laid the foundations for the later organisation. This approach to the NKT's historical development reflects the dominant narrative that has been publicly promoted by the leadership of the organisation. The 'official' version of the NKT's history has been reluctant to admit that Geshe Kelsang's thought has undergone considerable development and change during his time in the West. It has also, in Coney's (1997) terms, repressed the 'uncomfortable Other' of the Institute's conflict with the FPMT, ironing out the discontinuities in favour of a strong,…."

Think about this neutral POV of academical research and your own NKT policy-coloured (one-sided) information. Regards. --Kt66 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

""The main argument with which GKG can defend his policies is, that all this what he does was said to him by his Spiritual Guide. But nobody knows if this is the case and the Spiritual Guide himself is dead and GKG does also not accept his incarnation. So there is a huge gap of information and space for spinning. To argue all this is due to Trijang Rinpoches wishes seems to be more a defending argument and there is no validation than GKG/Belithers claims.""

Kt66, you are a good friend, thankyou again for your efforts on behalf of the neutrality of this article! I am much happier with it as it stands now, i think it portrays Geshela Kelsang in a fairer(if not un-negative) light. As to your remarks about proveing if Trijang did indeed tell Geshela to do the things he has done,we do have one real proof. For the rest of his life he refused to be a part of the HH's ban. He would not recant his belief in the practice of Dorje Shugden...ever. Imagine the whole of Buddhist faith against you Kt....could you hold to your belief??? I think that stands as an astounding "proof". You seem to be want to continue to bring up NKT over and over, they do this, they do that. I have at no point ever attempted to defend NKT. NKT is a big boy and has every ability/right to defend itself, quite removed from any pitiful help i might offer. If they are unable to follow Geshela's wishes as to how they run their faith, then they deserve what will come. I personally think that those in power in NKT have done their very best to follow the letter of Geshela's wishes. That they will break themselves in half rather than go against their heart guru's teachings. But time will tell on this case...one that we do not have before us here. Thankyou nevertheless for your work(and all the others as well)<and wiki>.

dwainDwaink 02:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dwaink, I agree the future will tell. As with contradicting the Guru, you'll find in Tsongkhapa's texts that you have to do restrain from following wrong wishes/commands of the Guru. If the Guru's wish is not in the Dharma you have to refuse it. But to understand what is "in the Dharma" and what "is not in the Dharma" there is much knowledge and realisation needed. Maybe a difficult task for westerners with less understanding and almost no realisation... If all the wise masters distance from one master, than this is a clear indication, that there is something going wrong. At least for me. However, I wish you all the best. Yours --Kt66 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Waterhouse references

Please give the book title and first name of the author Waterhouse who is referenced in this article. (See notes 10, 29, and 44.) There is no book or article by Waterhouse listed in the Reference section. With metta, Emptymountains 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

either it is in Bluck, Kay, Lopez or Cozort. They usually refer to her and her papers are mainly only available at the universities. if you need the exact text which refers to her I have to look for it. Her full name is Helen Waterhouse and she is quoted often by those researchers. many regards, --Kt66 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

you removed incorrectly:

Waterhouse states: NKT monks and nuns are simply described as 'ordained', and usually take the name 'Kelsang' from Geshe Kelsang. She also noted that the majority of monastics in NKT receive only the lower form of Getsul ordination (novices) and that there is an absence of an available equivalent of the Gelong (Skt. Bhikshu) full monastic ordination.

although it was properly quoted: Waterhouse 1997, 175; see also Kay page 233, the paper of Waterhouse is: Waterhouse, Helen (1997) “Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority”, Leeds: The Community Religions Project, University of Leeds it has been reviewd by Kay: http://www.buddhistethics.org/5/kay.htm --Kt66 (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

if you want to posit a "Kadampa Ordination" you have to make clear that this is a self-styled ordination by Geshe Kelsang. It has nothing to do with the Kadam-Tradition because they followed the Vinaya and its procedures. That's why I changed the headline to "Ordination in NKT". --Kt66 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

faith issue

I put a quote in that section which made clear that the teaching on 'faith' is described different by GKG and gave a quote/Reliable Source for it. If someone like to correct this, very good, please give your reason why my addition is wrong or not needed. I am happy when the article gets improved. At the moment I felt, it is obvious that this difference is there. Faith and its interpretation is a main issue in NKT and from Geshe Kelsang. Due to lack of arguments given or just my lack of understanding why a cancelling is needed, I reverted the edit so far. --Kt66 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the passage:

The definition of 'faith' by Geshe Kelsang is different as described in the Buddhist teachings. Asanga explained 'faith' (or 'believing') as the constructive mental action of focusing on something existent and knowable, and considering it either existent or true, or considering a fact about it true. Berzin states: "Thus, it does not include believing that an unknowable God or Santa Claus exists or that the moon is made of green cheese. Further, believing a fact occurs only while validly cognizing it and implies certitude. Therefore, believing (faith) also excludes presumption and blind faith, such as believing that the stock market will rise."

Although there is a big difference how NKT and GKG apply and understand the subject faith, I think that passage is not suited to describe it correctly. At the moment there is no investigation of a reliable source which investigates that. So for the sake of avoiding confusion I removed that passage. --Kt66 (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Geshela's own words might clear up this subject, as he speaks to this point and on the Spiritual Guide which also seems to be an issue(or was)...

[4]

Relying upon a qualified Spiritual Guide-Fall Festival 2007 Dwaink (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

The discussion whether to remove this and related articles is was first being carried out at [5]. Emptymountains (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Do quotations or refrences from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's own books - or from the web sites of NKT organizations run by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's devoted disciples (and therefore effectively under his control) amount self-published sources? - I wonder about this as we are told "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". Also do these sources provide a neutral point of view? Chris Fynn (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Just because a person is the leader of an organization doesn't make everything that organization does "self-published". The contradictory consequences of this line of reasoning are endless ... for example, everything that the Dalai Lama's government said would then be considered "self-published". With respect to Neutral Point of View, this rule means that the final Wikipedia article should reflect a Neutral Point of View. There is no contradiction between working towards an NPOV article, and relying upon Reliable Sources that each have different points of view. Peaceful5 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

3r party WP:RS

for 3r party WP:RS see:

• Kay, David N. (1997) ‘The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition‘, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12(3) (October 1997), 277-293
• Waterhouse, Helen (1997) “Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority”, Leeds: The Community Religions Project, University of Leeds (Reviewed by David Kay)
• Chryssides, George D. (1999) ‘The New Kadampa Tradition‘ in “Exploring New Religions“, Continuum International Publishing Group, 233-243
• Cozort, Daniel (2003) ‘The making of the Western Lama’ in Buddhism in the Modern World; Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 221-248
• David N. Kay (2004) ‘The New Kadampa Tradition‘ in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain, London: Routledge, 35-115
• David N. Kay (2004) ‘Geshe Kelsang Gyatso‘ in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain, London: Routledge, 57-61
• Waterhouse, Helen (2005) ‘New Kadampa Tradition’ in the Encyclopaedia of New Religious Movement, P. B. Clarke ed., London: Routledge
• Bluck, Robert (2006) ‘New Kadampa Tradition’ in British Buddhism London: Routledge, 129-151

David N. Kay’s research “Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC)” (2004) was reviewed by

• Inken Prohl (PhD), Professor at the University of Heidelberg
• Georg Feuerstein (PhD)

There is a Book Synopsis and Book Extract available.

In 1995 Prof. Geoffrey Samuel published Tibetan Buddhism as a World Religion: Global Networking and its Consequences curtly discussing NKT’s split from FPMT (see The Problem of Stability).

The Guardian article of Bunting, Madeleine (1996), Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, is also used in Bluck’s, Kay’s, Lopez’s and other’s academic research.

The links to those papers and to book extracts can be found here: http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/

--Kt66 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro section

user:truthbody changed the section which is based on 3! 3rd party sources favouring a NKT version, based on WP:SPS which is contrary to independent WP:RS. Because this is against the WP guidelines for articles I changed the section again according to 3rd party sources. There is no problem to include other povs in NPOV, also those from the organisation but the main weight should be 3rd party sources, and WP:SPS should be no blogs or anonymous websites. --Kt66 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I added also an English reference for the expulsion and wish to point out that the quote from drojeshugden.com is not WP:RS and a quote from Belither from a google talk group is no source at all for WP. However, I left those quotes there for the sake to be not too strict and to incorporate different povs. --Kt66 (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of Kay

If you notice the reference section, Kay's university thesis is used for practically everything in this article. This has proved problematical in other related articles, and I will be finding new third-party sources to balance this article out. Certainly, Kay's version of the NKT should not define the NKT, or be used so heavily in the introduction, so I have removed the use of the word "schism", which is emotive and highly debatable. (Truthbody (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Separation from the FPMT(?)

1. "This chapter outlines the origins of the FPMT in the 1970s and examines the schism that gave rise to a separate network of Buddhist centers headed by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the mid-1980s" (p. 53).

Having gone over Kay's material twice this weekend, I discern two distinct conflicts: (a) GKG's conflict with Lama Yeshe over the opening of Madhyamaka Centre, and (b) Manjushri Institute's conflict with the FPMT over the attempted selling of Manjushri Institute. Although the two events are very closely related because they involve the same people, they are separate events; and it's nowhere claimed that the first caused the latter. Just because the principal players are the same does not mean that the conflicts are the same. A third, much later, 'conflict,' if you want to call it that, is (c) GKG's separation from the Gelug hierarchy when he formed the NKT.

(a) GKG and Lama Yeshe

1978

2. "During the late 1970s, a situation of conflict developed between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso when the latter decided to open up a Buddhist centre in York under his own spiritual direction rather than under the auspices of the FPMT" (p. 61).

Notice that GKG's conflict is between himself and Lama Yeshe, not the FPMT. It could never have been a conflict between him and the FPMT because he had never signed a Geshe Agreement before opening Madhyamaka Centre, and he refused to do so afterwards. Presumably, it was intended to prevent him from opening up additional Centres under his own spiritual direction. Kay even quotes senior FPMT officials who explain that "even today, it is misleading to think of its teachers as 'FPMT geshes'" (p. 65).

If he was never formally a part of the FPMT, then there is no basis to claim in the Wikipedia article that he separated from it!

(b) Manjushri Institute and the FPMT

1978-1981

What Kay does not go into at this point, is the issue of the FPMT wanting to then sell Manjushri Institute. The chronicle of events put forth by Charles Radarmor, Roy Tyson, and Jim Belither in The History of Manjushri Institute says simply that "Shortly after these [1978] events, FPMT made plans to sell Conishead Priory." It next mentions "1981," which is two or three years after the conflict surrounding the opening of Madhyamaka Centre! So it's clear to me that conflict A could not have precipitated conflict B. It doesn't make sense that the FPMT would decide to close down Manjushri Institute simply because of what happened with Madhyamaka Centre and because the community there did not want GKG to leave. No, something else prompted the attempted closing of the Institute by the FPMT, information that Kay probably was not privy to.

Since there is no evidence that conflict A caused conflict B, then we can assume that conflict B never would have happened if the FPMT hadn't tried to sell off the property. It just clicked for me that although disgruntled FPMTers accuse GKG/NKT of "stealing" Manjushri Institute, in fact the Centre would not have even existed past 1981 had the FPMT been able to follow through with their plans to sell it!

3. "This marked the beginning of a rapidly deteriorating relationship between Geshe Kelsang and his students at the Institute on the one hand, and Lama Yeshe and the FPMT administration on the other." (p. 61)

I believe this sentence to be Kay's transition from conflict A (Geshe Kelsang and Lama Yeshe) to conflict B (GKG's students and the FPMT administration). From this point on, any 'conflict' or 'dispute' mentioned by Kay is between Manjushri Institute (MI) and the FPMT. This means we are dealing exclusively with conflict B now and no longer with conflict A. (Conflict A must have already been resolved if Lama Yeshe did not force GKG's departure.) Granted, GKG was the Resident Teacher at that time, but when Kay refers to MI, he always says this in regards to the 'students' or 'community' there which, administratively, was the 'Priory Group.' For example, "Geshe Kelsang was already predisposed to support his students in their struggle with the FPMT administration..." (p. 65). Here is each instance in Kay:

1983

4. "The conflict that was to develop between the FPMT and Manjushri Institute... Priory Group..." (p. 62)

5. "...an open conflict of authority developed between the Priory Group and the FPMT administration..." "...to authorise certain constitutional modifications that would give the Priory Group greater legal representation with respect to the Institute's future development..." "These meetings resulted in an agreement to resolve the dispute and improve communication between the Institute and the FPMT..." "...representing both 'sides' equally." "...enabling the Institute to remain within the FPMT whilst ensuring the autonomy it desired." (p. 63)

1984

6. "The dispute between the Institute and the FPMT..." "These developments appear to have provided the Priory Group with extra legitimation for their claim to self-determination, whilst also enabling the FPMT administration to prioritise the development of the rest of its network and, in many ways, to consign Manjushri Institute to its past. (p. 63)

7. "The conflict that developed between Manjushri Institute and the FPMT..." "...these conflicts have, in the case of the Institute and the FPMT..." "...in light of the Institute's struggles with the FPMT." (p. 64)

8. "...the organizational dispute between the Institute and the FPMT..." (p. 65)

post-1984

9. "From 1984, the Manjushri Institute continued to develop independently of the FPMT network." (p. 66)

10. Manjushri Institute's "rift with the FPMT" (as per the previous paragraph, and also per #11 below). (p. 67)

11. "The visit of Lama Zopa Rinpoche to Manjushri Institute in 1988 is significant, indicating the ongoing devotion of the students to this lama and their desire to leave the negativity of the schism with the FPMT in the past." (p. 73)

12. "...the Institute's conflict with the FPMT..." (p. 83)

13. "...schism..." "...the Institute's secession from the FPMT." (p. 84)

14. "...the earlier conflict between the Manjushri Institute and the FPMT." (p. 85)

15. "The conflict with Manjushri Institute during the early 1980s was a substantial setback for the FPMT." "...the conflict between the Institute and the FPMT." (p. 113)

16. "The conflict with the Manjushri Institute may not have caused any lasting damage to the development of the FPMT internationally..." (p. 115)

(c) GKG and Tibetan Gelug (not GKG and FPMT)

17. "The creation of the NKT in 1991 was thus a schismatic event, marking the formal separation of Geshe Kelsang and his network of centres from the degenerate religio-political world of Tibetan Gelug Buddhism." (p. 88)

18. "Geshe Kelsang has also underlined the separation between himself and the wider Gelug sect through making a number of revisions to the later editions of his earlier publications.... These omissions enabled him to dissociate himself from the two main authority figures within the Gelug monastic system..." (p. 89)

Emptymountains (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

The article says: "As it is an independent Western Buddhist organization, neither the Dalai Lama nor the Tibetan Ganden Tripa has any authority in terms of how the NKT-IKBU is organised and what practices are taught.[22" Maybe for people -like me- it should be mentioned, who in Tibetan Buddhism usually decides on the practices to be taught.

and, further, citing Kelsang Gyatso himself

“ If the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful then it follows that Je Phabongkhapa was not an authentic Buddhist master, and if he was not then there is no doubt that his heart disciples, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (the Senior and Junior Tutors of HH the Dalai Lama) were also not authentic. These three Lamas are the most important Gelugpa Lamas of recent times. If these three are not pure Teachers then there is no doubt that the entire practice of the Gelug Tradition is invalid. This is the main issue that needs clarification.[24]

the argument of the 14th Dalai Lama referring to this should be mentioned, too. He has declared somewhere, that even a Guru can err, and that other Gurus -like himself, for example- have to take their own decision referring to a controversial point. He said or wrote that he holds the Gurus in question here to be great gurus, though he is convinced that referring to the practice of Dorje Shugden they were (are) wrong.

Even if this is Kelsang Gyatso wikisite, this does not mean that he alone can be cited on the page.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.189 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This isn't close to NPOV. His group are seen as on the fringes of Tibetan Buddhism and are seen as a cult by almost everybody else. They've clearly written this article. Secretlondon (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

the article is comprehensive and well structured, with inline citations and good references. some sections are too short, including the intro, and should either be expanded or combined into larger sections. the article is nearly ready for a GA nomination, and with some minor restructuring so as to make it less sparse, would probably qualify. --Sapphic 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)