Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 1

I made some changes. Hopefully this is now more clear. Because I'm not native English my English is quite bad. Please correct me where it is useful... -- Kt66 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed structure back so it starts by saying what NKT is in the usual Wikipedia style, and used some of your references to the controversy others more appropriate in other articles.

Hi, I've changed the article to be more accurate. For example, NKT is not an offshoot of the Gelugpa tradition, but a global Buddhist tradition following the teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. NKT is not part of Tibetan Buddhism at all, and this needs to be made clear. The definition of NKT I used is from the NKT internal rules (I am an NKT Resident Teacher). Thank you. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, Vajravarahi Centre UK.

Hi Kelsang Pagpa, fine to see your interest for having an accurate article. The same interest is mine. I changed your changes to have it also more accurate. We can avoid "offshot", no problem, but the basis of NKT should be pointed out and that is that NKT is based on a selection on Gelug Teachings and GKG is a Gelug Lama, and his teacher too, isn't it? If you follow Atisha and Tsongkhapa you should not practice Shugden, they dind't taught it, is it? But however of course you can! I agree: "NKT is not part of Tibetan Buddhism at all" and added: "it is a new tradition based on Gelug teachings", isn't it?

NKT should not announce to be Kadampa Tradition or Kadampa Buddhism because that tradition doesn't exist anymore this is quite a serious mistake. Please encourage NKT to change that points in their official advertisemnts. And also they should please change their mode to count centers or not mention such topics. But your change of how you count them is now very good. Also I changed some things of your changes in Shugden Controv. but how ever I want not defeat you, we can discuss. I wish just to have an objective and accurate atrticle.

Perhaps you can now agree to some changes or reverts as being accurate? What changes else do you find necessary?

Fine to hear from you :-)) --Kt66 16:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Number of centres

Hi user Billion you put up the old version I can agree but not for overtaking their advertisement of having 800 centers worldwide! Do you know: if someone gives a room in his privat flat like in Frankfurt/Main Germany and somtimes one NKT teacher offers at a public place in that town a public talk, they name that room in the privat flat : Compasssion Center and show pictures of skyline of Frankfurt /main: see [1]

This is how to decieve themselfs and people. If you count centers like this: 800 this is not correct, that's why i reverted your change on that field. please give me other reasons when you don't agree -- Kt66 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but if their claim to have 800 centres is disputed can you find a reference to this dispute? Of course we could go and visit some, but that's 'original research' and not the wikipedia way! The reason I refer to the claim for 800 centres is to give and idea of the rapid expansion, and I believe that to be true. Similarly do you have any references for the situation at Manjushri. Surely there was some story in the press? Billlion 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

ok Billion I understand very good your point- of course they expanded rapidly. I myself was responsible for NKT-PR Work (Internet, flyers and so on) for about four years. I'm Ex NKT (and know of course other EX-NKT members) and know details from inside - of course I just catched only some points. So Frankfurt is just an example. You can check also nowadays: www.dipankara.de mention the Center Magdeburg but they do just rent a room for 2-3 hours in a Yoga School. The same is for Rostock, Potsdam, Neubrandenburg (this is a social cultural center): they just rent a room for some hours and name it center... You can easy check it out. As a source of the undertook of Manjushri Institute you can read the articles of Thubten Gonpo (I made a link) he has the letter and made it public, where Geshe Kelsang forced Lama Thubten Yeshe to give him the center. And Geshe Kelsang was invited by Lama Thubten Yeshe. This is mentioned in the book by Vicky McKensy about Lama Yeshe. But also good to check this source once more and discuss it. --Kt66 23:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The organization is regarded as an offshoot of the Geluk school of Tibetan Buddhism, the school to which the Dalai Lama belongs." - I am very concerned with this sentence.The organisation is not an offshoot of the Geluk - an 'offshoot' implies that the Geluk sanctioned the creation of the school, which they did not. Indeed, Geshe Kelsang was expelled from his monastary (which is a rare event in the Tibetan tradition), and his actions have been frowned upon by the entire Tibetan community.

I agree "offshot" doesn't suit. Tibetans Buddhist don't like what he is doing. Geshe Kelsang himself says the Tibetans are stupid because they follow the Dalai Lama. In german Wikipedia they use the term NKT is an "separation" or "secession" of the Gelug Tradition. This is more fact, because their root is Gelugpa, because Geshe Kelsangs master was Gelugpa but his presentation is different from Gelugpa. It is something new based on Gelugpa teachings. -- Kt66 11:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thubten Gonpo

I have changed the name of the external link that purports to be from "ex-NKT" member Thubten Gompo because it is clear that he is not ex-NKT but Gelugpa. He says that he lived at Manjushri Centre from 1978 - 1981, which would have been the time that it was Manjushri Institute under Lama Thubten Yeshe. Lama Yeshe died in 1983 (I think), but the New Kadampa Tradition did not formally come into existence until 1990, so it is impossible for Thubten Gompo to be ex-NKT, and it is misleading to say so. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, 19:00, 4 September 2005

Yes, Thubten Gonpo has never been a member of the NKT. He is very well researched on the Shugden tradition however.(20040302)

Well done Gen Pagpa, thank you! --Kt66 18:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

last changes

someone changed the last version deeply without commenting it on the discussion board. Please first discuss before totally changing! I will revert the version until there are good reasons to change the article because it seems to me quite appropriate, isn't it?

The last version was:

"The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) also known as the International Kadampa Buddhist Union (IKBU) is a global Buddhist organization founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a tibetan Gelug Lama. On the basis of selected Gelug teachings he founded a new tradition in the west. He named this tradition New Kadampa Tradition to inspire his desciples to practice like the old Kadampa masters.

But in fact there is no Kadampa Tradition or Kadampa Buddhism anymore because this liniage was absorbed into all the four tibetan buddhist schools and was completely absorbed into Gelug school.

So NKT is neither Kadampa school - because this liniage was totally absorbed into Gelug school and parts of it also into the other tibetan schools - nor Gelug school because he offers only a part of Gelug teachings and also not the main part of the union of Heruka, Ghyasamaja and Yamantaka how it was established by the founder of Gelug School Tsongkhapa and they do not hold the Vinaya liniage of Mulasarvastavadin too. That's why it is appropriate to say the New Kadampa Tradition is the tradition of Geshe Kelsang Gytaso.

For tibetan people and most Buddhists, the NKT-IKBU is also seen as controversial for its practice of worshiping Dorje Shugden, a practice which was not taught by Lord Buddha, Atisha or Tsongkhapa. See Dorje Shugden Controversy. However the NKT-IKBU is not a Tibetan Buddhist tradition, it is a new tradition based on a variaty of Gelug teachings and was established to be completely independent from the tibetan community and the four main tibetan buddhist schools.

The NKT-IKBU has expanded rapidly. NKT says: as of 2005 there are over 900 established centres and branch groups meeting worldwide. But there is to mention that they count as a center even a room they rent to offer once or twice a month a teaching or just a room of a NKT member in his flat and call it "centre"."

Is there anything which does'nt suit? Or even should be wrong? Please get in contact! --Kt66 12:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)