Talk:Kelsang Gyatso

Might I suggest that the text:

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

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

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

Picture added

Added a picture of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Also very controversial

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

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

remove page

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

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

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

took charge or took over

hi billion you changed and asked me...

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

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

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

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

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

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

put reasons for critics and links back

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

some corrections

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

NKT 'refutations'

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Kelsang-la, the teachings are not the same. We can't compare this if we didn't study both or even know other texts. I know as EX-NKT the books of GKG very well and have enough teachings outsite NKT. Also Je Tsongkhapa did'nt found the Gelugpa Tradition. He just received teachings from all traditions (Kadampa, Shije, Kagyu, Sakya and Nyingma) and gave it and his understanding and realisations of it to his desciples. Later it was called a tradition. (The same is with Atisha.) Regarding texts other than GKG books: It is not wished for that members of the teacher training program study other books than Geshe-las, isn't it? Further the major works of Tsongkhapas Tradition are: Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path (Lam-rim chen-mo), the Great Exposition of Tantras (sNgag-rim chenmo), the Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretive and Definitive Teachings (Drnng-nges legs-bshad snying-po), the Praise of Relativity (rTen-'brel bstodpa), the Clear Exposition of the Five Stages of Guhyasamaja (gSang-'dus rim-lnga gsal-sgron) and the Golden Rosary (gSer-phreng). None of this is studied in NKT. The Six Texts of the Kadampa Tradition are: The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga; An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt. Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga; A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt. Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva; A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way (Skt. Bodhisattvacharyaavatara) by Shantideva; A Garland of Birth Stories (Skt. Jatakamala) by Aryashura, and The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt. Udanavarga) - the Tibetan Dhammapada by Dharmatrata. Only one of them is studied within NKT: Bodhisattvacharyaavatara. So NKT studies one Text of the main texts of Kadampa Tradition and one similar Lamrim text of the main texts of Gelug Tradition (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is more like Pabongkha Rinpoches style than Je Tsongkhapas). For me this is quite ok, because people have the choice what they wish to do. What I feel really pitty for is that NKT claims in all their Websites that it is the Kadampa Tradition of Atsha and a complete lineage. This is to be shamed for. NKT attracts people with false informations by its deceiving and misleading advertisements. Please stop this and give proper informations. This I ask you and NKT for! My involvement in this wikipedia article is not other motivated than this: to give people proper informations on New Kadampa Tradition so that they can decide on the basis of the truth if they wish to follow NKT. Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KG biographical details request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion

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

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

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

2nd March can corroborate his claims.

More or less done, your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initiation

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

Instructions of the Guru

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

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

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

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

Thomas Merton Question

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

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

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

changed section

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

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

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

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

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

Geshe Kelsang's Achievements

Dear Kt66 and others,

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

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

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

Life in India - Geshe Kelsang's Geshe status

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

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

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

Sera Expulsion

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

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