According to the Australian Sangha Association “for NKT members to represent themselves to the public as authentic Buddhist monks and nuns is wrong and misleading.”
According to the New Kadampa Tradition “Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society. The NKT is following this advice from Buddha.”
Is the NKT claim correct?
“Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society.”
This is incorrect. Suppose it would be true then NKT monks and nuns should go shopping, enjoy relationships, watching TV, founding families, increasing the income of one’s country, enjoying pleasure, serving the army, going for work to earn money, and from time to time go for wars against one’s countries enemies, because this “is most acceptable for society”. But the monk’s and nun’s life is no householder life and it is distinct different from living in the society. Suppose such a saying of the Buddha would exist then NKT should give a reference for it.
The Change of Vinaya Rules
The Buddha allowed the Assembly of the Sangha to change minor rules, but because until today no agreement could be found what are ‘minor rules’ and what not, the rules haven’t been changed in the three existing Vinaya lineages (Theravada, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dhammaguptika) until today. (see also History of the Vinaya Lineages and Sects and Sectarianism – The Origins of Buddhist Schools)
The claim of NKT, “NKT monks and nuns are authentic”, is incorrect in two ways:
- Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, an expelled Bhikshu from Sera Mey, is not the Assembly of the Sangha who can change the Vinaya rules. “One bhikkhu cannot effect any changes since Vinaya-decisions are arrived at after the consultation of a Sangha” (see The Buddhist Monk’s Discipline) and “However, when the monks want to amend even certain minor precepts, they would have to do it with the sanction of a recognized Sangha Council. Individual monks are not at liberty to change any Vinaya rules according to their whims and fancies. Such a Council of Sangha members can also impose certain sanction against monks who have committed serious violations of the disciplinary code and whose behavior discredits the Sangha. The Buddha instituted the Council to help monks to prevent evil deeds and avoid temptation in a worldly life. The rules were guidelines rather than inviolable laws handed down by some divine authority.” (see What is Vinaya?)
- Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has not changed ‘minor rules’. In fact Geshe Kelsang has removed the complete lineage of novice ordination and full ordination, including the three monastic activities, fortnightly Sojong (this can only be performed with at least four Bhikshus), the Rain Retreat, and the End of Rain Retreat. By this there is no Buddhist order active in NKT; the complete Vinaya is inactive. Without the complete Vinaya and the presence of the Four Assemblies the transmission of the Dharma is incomplete (see The Four Assemblies and the Foundation of the Order of Nuns). This is also clear from the Lam Rim teachings, because a Central Buddhist Country is only a country where all Four Assemblies are present, the order of monks and nuns together with laymen and laywomen. Because the monastic order and the proscribed rituals can only function with fully ordained ones, the presence of fully ordained persons is of vital importance for the existence and continuation of the monastic order. The presence of fully ordained monks and nuns is also of vital importance for the continuation of the Dharma, as the Buddha said himself in the Vinaya Sutra “As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides, the Lamp of Dharma shall abide.” Due to these reasons His Holiness the Dalai Lama and many Buddhist monks and nuns are eager to revive the Bhikshuni order (the order of fully ordained nuns) in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
The Buddha
“There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: ‘In the Blessed One’s presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One’s presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas and tally them against the Vinaya.
If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it’ and you should reject it. But if… they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.’” (see also ATI)
Although most quotes above are from the Theravada Vinaya, the Indian-Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage is not very different from it. The views regarding changing of rules and the importance of the Vinaya, are the same. Until now not much of the commentary literature of the Indian-Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya has been translated into English, therefore the reader who seeks clarity may use the Theravada Vinaya explanations.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s views on ordination contradict the Mahayana and Je Tsongkhapa[1]
Geshe Kelsang states in his ordination talk 1999:
“Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which belongs to the Hinayana tradition. Personally I find this strange. We are Mahayana Buddhists so why are we following the Vinaya – the Pratimoksha vows – of the Hinayana tradition?”
Although, sadly, the commentary by Geshe Kelsang includes a lot of more inaccuracies and misleading claims, for the sake of simplicity I take just this claim to show how it directly contradicts the Mahayana (the Bodhisattva vows) and Je Tsongkhapa’s own explanation whose tradition Geshe Kelsang claims to hold ‘purely’. Je Tsongkhapa explains the Bodhisattva vow not to “Reject the Hearers [Hinayana] vehicle” based on Asanga’s Bodhisattvabhumi (italic letters):
Rejecting the hearers vehicle
To hold oneself, and espouse to others the view that ‘A bodhisattva does not listen to doctrine that is associated with the vehicle of the hearers; he should not guard the words and the sense of it, nor should he train himself sustainedly in it. There is no need to do these things’ – is a defiled fault.
To hold the opinion that it is necessary for someone of the lesser vehicle to listen etc. to the hearers’ vehicle, but it is not necessary for the bodhisattva, does not constitute a fundamental rejection of the vehicle of the hearers. It looms especially large, however, as the seminal transgression of causing others to reject the pratimoksa.
The reason that this results in transgression is that if the bodhisattva need apply himself even to tirthika treatises, what need to mention the exalted word of the Buddha?
To maintain that those of little familiarity with doctrine, so long as they belong to the Greater Vehicle, need not train themselves in pratimoksa, is a great pitfall that accumulates obstacles whose karmic maturation is a paucity of doctrine. This precept is the best guideline for avoiding it.[2]
The Bodhisattva vow “Not training for the sake of others’ faith.” is explained by Asanga (italic letters) and commented by Je Tsongkhapa in the following manner:
Not training for the sake of others’ faith
The bodhisattva trains himself as do the hearers [Hinayana] – not refusing to conform by distinguishing himself from them – according to what has been legislated by the Lord as trainings in the Pratimoksa, the source work, and in other vinaya texts such as the Vibhanga that are commentaries to it, to be reprehensible by precept (which means, those [rules] not reprehensible by nature), in order to guard the thought of others. He renounces whatever the hearers renounce.
In order that those previously without faith may have faith, and those previously faithful may develop it further, there are precepts for not drinking alcohol, abstinence from eating at the wrong time and so forth, as well as [not] digging the soil, making a fire, etc. You must train yourself in these as do the hearers, for if you fail to do so, not only does a fault develop contradicting the pratimoksa – a misdeed also develops contradicting the bodhisattva vow.
The reason for this is that the hearers, intent as they are upon their own welfare, train themselves in trainings that guard the minds of others. How much more so must the bodhisattvas, intent as they are upon the welfare of others!”[3]
The explanation of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso does not only contradict the Mahayana it also contradicts the Vinaya and Pratimoksha (as explained by the Buddha and Je Tsongkhapa), and it contradicts the approach of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa who both strongly emphasized the Vinaya and the three set of vows (Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana) and showed how they should be practised together and that there is no contradiction between these three set of vows.
The Lineages of Buddhist monks and Nuns and the Lineages of Buddhist Ordination[4]
Nowadays there are three existing lineages of ordination:
- the Theravada lineage: mainly in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. They follow the Theravadin Vinaya, which has 227 rules for the bhikkhus (male monastics) and 311 for the bhikkhunis (female monastics).
-the Dharmagupta lineage: mainly in China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, which has 250 rules for the bhikkhus and 348 rules for the bhikkhunis. They follow the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.
- the Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage: mainly in Tibet and Mongolia, which has 253 rules for the bhikshus and 364 rules for bhikshunis. They follow the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.
The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is that of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and his teachers. The lineage is (roughly listed) from Buddha Shakyamuni -> Shariputra -> Rahula (Buddha’s son) -> Nagarjuna -> Bhavaviveka -> Shrigupta -> Jnanagarbha -> Shantarakshita (who brought it to Tibet) -> Je Tsongkhapa -> to the present Vinaya holders. (Also Sakya Pandita was ordained in that lineage.)
There is nothing existent like a “Kadampa ordination according to Geshe Potowa” or a “Kadampa ordination derived from the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra“. Who claims this is incorrect and is deceiving people. Arya Nagarjuna explained 36 vows for a Buddhist novice monk or novice nun and 253 vows for a fully ordained monk and 364 vows for a fully ordained nun according to the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.
Downloads[5]
Prātimokşa Sūtra of the Mūlasarvāstivādins:
- Introduction to the Pratimoksha Sutra – Geshe Tekchok: Monastic Rites, London 1985
- Mahāmahopādyāya Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana: So-sor-thar-pa : The Tibetan version of the Prātimokşa Sūtra of the Mūlasarvāstivādins
- The Bhikshuni Pratimoksha Sutra of the Mulasarvastivadin School
- Je Tsongkhapa: The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean
- Opening of the Prātimokşa Sūtra from the Gelong Sojong text of Sera Je monastery (bimonthly ritual of confession proscribed by the Buddha for Buddhist monks and nuns)
- The Sutra on Being Endowed with Morality: Sila Samyukta Sutra
For those seeking authentic explanations about the Indian-Tibetan Mulasarvastivada Vinaya lineage, they may read these public available commentaries:
- Essence of the Vinaya Ocean And The Namse Dengma Getsul Training by Lama Tsong Khapa; translated by Geshe Graham Woodhouse; ISBN: 8190236067[6]
- Direct Instructions from Shakyamuni Buddha – A Gelong’s Training in Brief by H.H. the XIVth Dalai Lama; translated by Geshe Graham Woodhouse; ISBN: 8190236075[6]
- Stanzas for a Novice Monk (Nagarjuna) & Essenz of the Ocean of Vinaya (Lama Tsongkhapa), Commentary by Lama Mipham Rinpoche, ISBN : 8186470158
- Geshe Jampa Thegchok: Monastic Rites, Wisdom Books, ISBN : 0861712374
- Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye: Buddhist Ethics (Treasury of Knowledge), ISBN cloth: 155939191X
- The Complete Works of Atisha, translated by Sherburne, Commentary on the Lamp of the Path by Atisha, Chapter III: The Monastic Life, ISBN: 81-7742-022-4 (The chapter is based on the Mahasamghika Vinaya, but points out clearly Atisha’s position regarding monasticism.)
See Also
- NKT ordination – a neutral portray of the NKT vows
- NKT’s view on NKT ordination
- ASA’s view on NKT ordination
- A Gelong’s view on NKT ordination
- How important is the Vinaya?
- Update: New Kadampa Tradition – Ordination
- NKT Ordination – Clarifying More Misunderstandings
For more about monasticism see
- Preparing for Ordination: Reflections for Westerners Considering Monastic Ordination in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition – edited by Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron
- Ordination: Caught Between Two Cultures by Ven. Losang Monlam
- A Practical Approach to Vinaya by Bhikshuni Jampa Tsedroen
- Whatever Happened to the Monastic Sangha? by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
- The Challenge of the Future – How Will the Sangha Fare in North American Buddhism? by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
- On the role of the Buddhist Sangha in today’s society by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Last edited by tenpel on September 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm
(copyrighted material was removed, new links were added)
Oh, Thanks! Really funny. Big ups!
Additional Comment to clarify some claims of NKT on Ordination
last edited Oct 18, 2009
To clarify at least some of the many unique claims made by Kelsang Gyatso in his Ordination Talk* and to clarify and correct some points with respect to NKT ordination made on the ‘Truth’-site of NKT here an annotation and correction to some key claims they made.
1. Geshe Potowa and Renunciation
It is said in the Gelug school that the a person who has Pratimoskha vows in his or her mind (there are eight types of Pratimoskha vows, see Je Tsongkhapa’s The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean) upon having realized uncontrived renunciation, these Pratimoskha vows become actual Pratimoksha vows.
Because the Gelong Geshe Potowa had developed uncontrived renunciation only due to the influence of his lay teacher Dromtönpa, he referred to him as his ‘abbot’ in the figurative sense, just for the sake to underline a point that was important for himself: that only due to the blessings of Dromtönpa and his teachings he was able to realize uncontrived renunciation, and that before he realized uncontrived renunciation he had only a similitude of the real meaning of ordination in his mental continuum. However, of course he had the Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows already in his mental continuum, which became manifest when he received formal ordination by the Sangha according to the Pratimoskha/Vinaya. These Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows in the mental continuum of Geshe Potowa which he received when he was ordained by the Sangha formed the very basis of his actual state of being an ordained person, a Buddhist monk in the lineage of Buddha Shakyamuni, and only these Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows in the mind of Geshe Potowa could become actual Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows when he realized uncontrived renunciation due to Dromtönpa’s influence.
If one understands this clearly it becomes obvious that there is neither a ‘Kadampa Ordination according to Geshe Potowa’ nor an ‘ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa’. What Geshe Potowa said is just a skilful teaching underlining a point which he felt important to stress.
The type of ‘transforming’-ordination Keslang Gyatso explains is not taught by Geshe Potowa nor in the Vinaya or Perfectiion of Wisdom Sutras, his claims or explanations are very uncommon views based on Kelsang Gyatso’s own interpretations.
If one investigates the unique claims made in the ordination talk it appears that this talk is quite of an impressive intellectual stunt or a distortion of the facts. The reason why this ‘stunt’ has been undertaken could be, that for full ordination Kelsang Gyatso needs at least five fully ordained monks (who are fully ordained for at least ten years) which do not exist in NKT. However, about the motivation can be speculated a lot, but the facts are very clear: there is no Kadampa ordination nor an ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa.
2. Utter non-sense offered by the NKT
It is amazing to see how far Kelsang Gyatso and NKT go to justify the NKT ‘ordination’. NKT followers who have usually no understanding of non-NKT teachings may think the NKT unique tenets (or distortions) on ordination are correct.
To short a lengthy discussion the main points can be summarized as:
- as said already, there is just no ordination ‘according to Geshe Potowa’, ‘ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa’ or any other Kadampa Geshe existent which NKT could follow; an “ordination interpreted by Geshe Potowa (1031-1106)” is a totally non-existent like the horns of a rabbit or the fur of a tortoise; what is existent is a statement by Geshe Potowa which is meant in a figurative sense and has not to be taken literally
- all ordained masters of the Kadampa sect were ordained persons according to the Mulasarvastavada lineage where Getsul/Gestul-ma (male and female novices) hold 36 vows and a Gelong (fully ordained monk) holds 253 vows. only with the presence of the latter and the Vinaya an order and ordination can function. the reason why the Vinaya texts and their commentaries start with ‘Homage to the Omniscient One’ is because the rules in the Pratimoksha are based on Buddha’s direct perception of the law of Karma (cause and effect), and the rules cannot be changed or abandoned arbitrary by 1 person.
- the claim of NKT would hold the ‘essential meaning’ of ordination is of the same taste as many other of NKT’s unique tenets or PR-stunts. NKT do not teach, hold and transmit the Vinaya but claim to have its ‘essential meaning’; NKT do not teach, hold and transmit the works of Je Tsongkhapa but claim to have their ‘essential meaning’; NKT offers only a selection of texts and a rather superficial understanding of Tibetan Buddhism written by one author but claims to be ‘complete’ and to offer the ‘entire Buddhist path to enlightenment’ [in 20 books] – maybe the books and NKT are a ‘complete selection’ ;-)
- the NKT ordination is – from my point of view and knowledge – not invalid, however, the ordainees are no members of the Buddhist monastic order as established by the Buddha and laid down in the Vinaya; NKT ordainees, are mere Rabjungs, neither lay nor ordained persons but in an ‘intermediate state’ between both of them (see ‘Monastic Rites’ by Geshe Jampa Tegchok); hence NKT ‘monks and nuns’ can neither constitute nor represent the monastic Buddhist order, since only Gestul/Getsul-mas and Gelong/Gelongmas are members of the order, and from them only the latter are full members of the order.
- it is incorrect to claim: “a monk or a nun becomes ‘fully ordained’ (Gelong or Bhikshu (monk), Gelongma or Bhikshuni (nun)) by holding the ten vows of [NKT] ordination and having developed the realization of renunciation” because if there are no Gelong or Gelongma vows given during ordination, there won’t be a basis that they can become actual Gelong or Gelongma Pratimoskha vows. If the claim of NKT were be true, it follows 1. there would exist Gelongmas in the Tibetan tradition because there are female persons who have attained uncontrived renunciation and would no according to NKT tenets be fully ordained nuns, because their vows transformed into actual Gelongma vows, but NKT refutes that Gelongmas in the Tibetan Tradition exist; 2. Dromtönpa, the famous lay follower and heir of Atisha who realized uncontrived renunciation and who had received the lay Pratimoskha vows (which are quite the same as NKT’s first five of ten vows), would have become a Gelong when he realized uncontrived renunciation. If this would be true then it is wrong to claim Dromtönpa would have been a lay person, because he were in actual a Gelong; 3. the Pratimoksha vows of every lay person upon attaining uncontrived renunciation would become Gelong or Gelongma vows and he can not have sexual intercourse with his wife any more and would have to abandon his householder’s life.
- what can be said is that KG seems to be very convinced that his “condensations” and “essence-iations” of complex and profound Buddhist topics would not water down Buddhism and he may have a deep confidence to be able to summarize or reduce without failure 2500 years of Buddhism on his own, including all the Sutras of the Buddha, the Kangyur and Tangyur, the treatises of the Indian pandits, the works of the Tibetan Kadampa masters, the Vinaya masters and the 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa into about 20 books and 10 rules for ‘ordained persons’. For him just one page of a Sutra of the Buddha, three pages of Je Tsongkhapa’s 18 volumes and about five pages of the works of the Kadampa masters together with his 20 books seem to be sufficient to hold both traditions’ legacy ‘purely’, while at the same time he strongly believes – and instructs his followers – that the Gelug school would be ‘quite degenerated’…
* a rather detailed comment was made on E-Sangha in the New Kadampa Tradition thread pointing out e.g. the wrong claim that the rules of NKT ordination would derive from the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. The stance of the ASA on NKT ordination is correct: http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
Dear Tenzin,
I don’t really understand why you are trying to compare Kadampa ordination (Mahayana) and the ordination practice of the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition (Hinayana) since they come from different sources.
It seems to me that you are concerned with the words rather than the meaning. What is it that makes someone a Gelong or Gelongma rather than a novice? It’s their deep and spontaneous experience of renunciation and the three higher trainings surely? What would it be – holding hundreds of vows that have no relevance in the modern world and that they don’t have a hope in hell of keeping? The vows aren’t ‘magic’ and neither is the number of vows. The purpose of the vows is to support and protect the practice of renunciation and the three higher trainings so that they become deeper and deeper until liberation is achieved. You have to understand how this works, and then it’s possible to re-invent the ordination to be more applicable to this time and culture.
To focus on the ‘rules’ or words rather than the meaning is a sign of the degeneration of Buddhadharma in this world. In my view, the Kadampa ordination puts the meaning back into being ordained by putting contentment, renunciation and the three higher trainings back at the center of the practice which otherwise had just become a long list of impossible and largely irrelevant rules governing physical and verbal behavior. Whilst I respect people who are trying to do the impossible job of keeping all these physical and verbal rules Ordination is about changing your mind It’s the mind that matters and how much it has changed, not the rulebook. In clinging to the vows rather than why they exist in the first place you have aptly demonstrated that you don’t really understand ordination or what its purpose is. You certainly don’t understand the ten commitments of Kadampa ordination if you think they are the same as lay pratimoksha vows, but that’s not surprising because it’s not your tradition and you haven’t really thought about it.
Hi newkadampatruth, thank you for taking time to read my additional comment.
Since the NKT robed members go into the public with the robes of Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns, claiming to be ordained followers of the Buddha and going against respected members of the Buddhist monastic order dressed in the robes of real monks and nuns, it should be clarified, that those NKT robed members are not actual Buddhist monks and nuns by those who are actual monks and nuns.
Since the bad behaviour of shouting, slander and wrong accusations in the public is not appropriate for Buddhist nuns and monks and also very uncommon even for lay Buddhist, the behaviour of NKT robed members created some confusion in the public, hence it is appropriate to clarify in the public, that NKT robed members are not actual Buddhist monks and nuns.
So then if NKT robed members violate the rules and destroy lay people’s faith it is at least not harmful for the order and the people, and the latter are able to put events into perspective if these issues are properly communicated.
Now, with respect to your post there is not much to say: A “Kadampa ordination (Mahayana)” is a non-existent phenomenon like the fur of a tortoise or the horns of a rabbit. Your post starts by assuming a non-existent to be an existent, this is ignoring reality, hence there is no basis for discussion. Like if you argue with an astrologer about the second moon revolving the earth. A second moon does not exist, hence it is stupid to argue about this, likewise a “Kadampa ordination (Mahayana)” does not exist, hence it can’t be compared. The measure of comparison is what the Buddha has taught for Buddhist monks and nuns according to the Vinaya and the Vinaya’s very heart, the Pratimoskha. Of course you are free to put facts upside down and to label it e.g. “concerned with the words rather than the meaning”, “sign of the degeneration of Buddhadharma in this world” or “clinging to the rules”. (Maybe for Gen Thubten and Gen Samden, the former successors of KG, and others within NKT it would have been better if they had “clung to the rules”…)
Everybody is free to be cheated or to cheat himself or herself. I don’t follow that approach anymore, though I did when I followed the NKT wholeheartedly.
Thee good news is: Distorted Views will finally collapse because they have no basis in reality.
So then lets try to focus on seeing reality as it is.
Tenzin, you are denying the Buddha’s teaching. There is nothing in the Kadampa ordination that contradicts Buddha’s teaching. It’s like Hinayanists denying that Buddha taught the Mahayana or Vajrayana when the very basis of those yanas is the criterion by which they judge something to be Buddha’s teaching – if it fits into the ‘three baskets’ or pitakas.
The foundation of the Kadampa ordination is the embodiment of the three baskets – renunciation, moral discipline, mental stabilization and wisdom. It has already been shown how the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk can be placed within the ten commitments of Kadampa ordination, therefore your labelling Kadampa ordination as a non-existent is a wrong view akin to denying karma, past and future lives and enlightenment itself, and it is an action that denigrates the Buddha’s teaching. You are, in effect, abandoning Dharma.
It is wrong to deny that something is Buddha’s teaching just because the format is different to what you are familiar with.
This is just self-serving, self justificatory nonsense! Two things:
1)Buddha said in the Pattimokha Sutta that as long as the Vinaya exists, the lamp of the Dhamma will continue to shine.
2) Whereas the Mahayana Bodhisatta and the Vajrayana vows are endowed on the mental continuum, the Vinaya vows are physically imbued during the Vinaya ordination process (ask Kelsang Gyatso).
Thus, for the Dhamma to enjoy continued existence, the Vinaya vows, vows that have existed in an unbroken continuum from the time of the Buddha, must be endowed via the traditional ceremony by a qualified vow holder.
It is therefore not the format which is the issue. For the vows to be genuine Vinaya, they must be imbued via the ceremony which has been repeated continuously down the ages.
Any attempt to fabricate ones own system and mimic this, fails to recognize that the power of the Vinaya exists because of the physical nature of the vows, the bona fide ordination ceremony and the associated vows.
You may keep vows not to kill, steal etc, but these are not the monastic vows; the Buddhist monastic vows are the vows the body receives during a valid ordination ceremony conducted in accord with Vinaya procedures and by qualified preceptors who received their ordination from one of the remaining unbroken lineages.
Any other form of ordination is made up mimicry since the essential nature of the monastic vows is a physical blessing imbued from an unbroken lineage originating from the Buddha.
Since the Buddha himself said the Dhamma will only continue to exist as long as the Vinaya remains, the shaven headed fancy dressers of the NKT are not monks and nuns-they are actually destroyers of the Dhamma. Why? Because they undermine the Vinaya which the Buddha himself identified as an essential prerequisite to the continued existence of the precious Dhamma.
Outside the Mahayana, one sometimes encounters a degree of ill founded contempt for the Mahayana Buddhist ordination lineages. However, from the perspective of both the Theravadin and Mahayana monastic ordination lineages, the NKT is a joke, a joke that would actually be quite funny f it did not toll the death knoll for genuine Dhamma.
You can call yourself an elephant if your grey, youve got a trunk and big floppy ears. If you paint yourself grey, put on plastic ears and attach a tube to youre nose, im afraid you dont become an elephant-YOURE JUST DRESSING UP.
“There is nothing in the Kadampa ordination that contradicts Buddha’s teaching.”
The Buddha’s teaching on ordination is contained in the Vinaya. Is the NKT ordination found in the Vinaya? No.
Does the NKT ordination convey the spirit of the Buddha’s system of ordination? Since the ‘spirit’ of genuine Buddhist ordination has been conveyed in an unbroken line for generations through and is embodied in the ordination ceremonies according to the remaining valid ordination lineages, no, the NKT’s ordination does not convey the ‘spirit’ of Buddhist ordination.
Sorry NKT, in the ‘real’ Buddhist world, your ordination is considered fake. Clothes might make the man, but simply wearing robes and promising not to do things is not ‘Buddhist’ ordination, it is simply NKT ordination.
You also state: ‘The foundation of the Kadampa ordination is the embodiment of the three baskets – renunciation, moral discipline, mental stabilization and wisdom.’ er, that’s four. Renunciation is not one of the Three Baskets.
You invented a fourth basket and you invented an ‘ordination’. The difference is renunciation is part of the Buddha’s teaching (I think youll find its an aspect outlined primarily in the Sutra basket) On the other hand, NKT ordination cannot be found anywhere in the Buddha’s teaching, only the NKTs
The simple solution is for the NKT to provide the scriptural citations which confirm the validity of their ordination. These, according to the NKT, are in the writings of Geshe Potowa and the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. OK; exactly where? Please provide the exact scriptural references which support your assertions. The argument will then be concluded (one way or the other;)
The thing over the three baskets is interesting. Recently, I spoke with an ex NKT monk who had taught for them for three years. He asked me why after practicing the Noble Eightfold Path and becming Buddha, practitioners still didnt have the power to help others. Sadly, I had to infrom him that the eightfold path is actually a Theravadin practice leading to Arhatship, not enlightenment. He was vey surprised. Two instances of NKT teachers demonstrating faulty knowedge of a very obvious distinction between Theravada and Mahayana practice-I am reminded of the story of the frog in the well who thought the moon was the only thing in the universe.
This is another example of how a combination of overwhelming hubris and ignorance have combined to create the paper tiger of the mighty NKT. Unlike the great non-sectarian masters of our time such as Khunnu Lama tenzin Gyaltsen, Gyatso and his followers have no proper understanding of the other Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions. They simply consider their own views superior because thats what ‘Geshe-la says’. Scratch the deceptive thin facade of the NKTs image and beneath it one finds that all that has been learned has been ‘the gospel according to..’.
The fact that someone who represents the organisation can demonstrate such ignorance in relation to:
a) the nature of ordination,and
b) the nature of the different Buddhist paths
particualry where those individuals hold positions of power within the organisation, indicates that NKT ‘Dharma’ does not provide the perfect means of preserving the purity of the Buddha’s teaching. Rather, it has become a vehicle for the expression of narrow minded, ignorant secatarian views and for the deluded to convince themselves of their spiritual superiority, only because they can think what they have been told to think. Buddha said that those who wish to practice should assay his teaching as if they were buying gold. In the NKT however, blind acceptance of the official ‘truth’ seems to be the order of the day. THINK FOR YOURSELVES-DONT JUST FOLLOW BECAUSE THOSE AROUND YOU DO! Remember what happens to lemmings?
I also see that NewKadampaTruth claims that by denying the validity of the NKTs ordination, TP is creating the massive negative karma of ‘abandoning the dharma’. A proper reading of the commentaries seems appropriate. For instance, for a Dharma practitioner to claim it is not necessary for a Mahayanist to practice Hinayana teachings is one of the commonest examples given. I note Kelsang Gyatso, in justifying his made up ordination asks the question of why Mahayanists should practice Hinayana methods, since the Vinaya is part of the Hinayana tripitaka. Setting aside the fact that the Vinaya forms the foundation of all extant ordination lineages, in both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions,both of which have at their foundation the three baskets, Gyatso’s claim is very obviously a clear example of abandoning the Dharma. Moreover, to invent a teaching that is not contained within the three baskets and claim it is dharma, as in the case of NKT ordination (which they themselves admit is not contained within the Vinaya) constitutes the equally dangerous practice of ‘preaching false dharma’.
Before NKTruth starts to make such wild allegations, I suggest he/she takes out some time to study the commentaries by the great masters of the past, those who preserved the purity of the teachings for thousands of years by strictly following the Buddha’s teaching, not by making it up as they went along.
Once again, by opening his’her mouth, NKTruth, official NKT spokesperson proves that he/she does not even understand the basic dharma of the traditions.Sole representatives of Pure dharma tradition in the west? Yeah, right.
Here, here!
In fact the whole comment, which identifies ‘abandoning the dharma’ as “denying karma, past and future lives and enlightenment itself, and denigrating the Buddha’s teaching” Is actually a list of the principle ways of ‘holding wrong views’, the tenth non-virtue, and not the various means of abandoning dharma listed in the teachings. For goodness sake NKT, can’t you find anyone who knows anything about Dharma before you start preaching it to others? Your like dodgy mechanics who claim to be able to fix cars but dont even know which bit goes where! Kelsang Gyatso-dont send boys to do men’s jobs!
‘There is nobody in the three realms who is more all-knowing than the perfectly accomplished Buddha
It is therefore neccessary to adhere faithfully to the Sutras and Tantras which are the words of the Buddha
To add anything false to the Sutras and Tantras renders one liable to criticism from the exalted ones`
Sakya Pandita
Didnt KG praise Sapan as an all knowing enlightened being? So why does he go against his words?
Well, NKTruth. Where is your response? The scriptural citations for example. You know, the one’s on which NKT ordination is based. After all, if it cant be found in the Buddhist scriptures IT IS NOT THE BUDDHAS TEACHING. In other words, if your ordination canot be fully justified on the basis of scripture, it is a false teaching. Come along now; hurry!Otherwise, your silence stands as a confirmation of this
I read elsewhere the claim that the NKT protector was an enlightened being. Someone asked them to provide scriptural references for the assertion that this deity was recognised in the Sakya tradition as an enlightened being. Guess what? No evidence provided. So dont expect answers soon on this…….because there arent any.
PS take a look at the NKT edited Wiki page on Pabongka which claims he did not hold sectarian views. Then check out volume cha of his collected works. Then consider:
“Apart from the doctrine of Manjughosha Tsongkhapa alone, the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous.” (See ‘Compilation of Questions and Answers on an Assortment of Subjects from Both the Open and Secret Teachings’ at http://aciprelease.org/r6web/flat/S0505E_T.TXT)
Er??????????
Basically NKT make their false claims on the basis of two main criteria-
* No evidence
* Evidence which totally contradicts their assertions
‘Illogical Captain’
This is exactly how the NKT and Gyatso flourish: through ignorance. Those of us who know Tibetan and have access to Pabongka’s Collected Works have the freedom and ability to access the contents of volume Cha. In it, one finds numerous examples of sectarian bigotry, even to the extent that Pabongka cultivated links with the Chinese to close non-gelug monasteries. However, most Westerners dont have such ability or access and so the NKT are free to write any old rubbish and claim it as truth. Maybe they can set Trinlay Kelsang Billman (their Tibetan ‘expert’) to translate the particular volume to which I refer. However, since this would reveal the bigotry of their forefather, I feel quite this is one translation Bellboy will not be running to translate
I would like to clarify a mistake in the above article. You state that the Dharmagupta lineage is followed in Japan, but in fact the Vinaya is no longer extant in the Japanese traditions. They have married clergy, at least as far as men go. Nuns are traditionally celibate, but given that the male clergy no longer follow the pratimoksha, it follows that a bhikshuni ordination no longer exists in Japan as well as bhikshunis require bhikshus for their ordinations.
South Korea also has some orders that either allow for married clergy, such as the Jingak and Taego orders, although the majority of Buddhist clergy there are traditional celibate bhikshus and bhikshunis.
Thank you for pointing out this mistake Hue Hai.