GUEST POST
A growing number of people are leaving the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and sharing their reasons for doing so. We hope this information can help you come to an informed decision about the kind of Buddhist organization you would be comfortable committing to.
- NKT students study only books written by one person, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a Tibetan monk expelled by his Tibetan monastery. Although students are not forbidden to read other books they are strongly discouraged from doing so.
- NKT’s main daily prayers are to a controversial deity known as Dorje Shugden. The Dalai Lama strongly discourages Shugden practices as divisive. Indeed the current protests against him by the WSS (Western Shugden Society), many members of which are high profile NKT teachers, are proving divisive and ugly, as are NKT techniques of swamping online Buddhist chat rooms and message boards with pro-Shugden and anti Dalai Lama propaganda.
- Two high profile members of the NKT, both serving long term as Deputy Spiritual Director at different times – Neil E. (Gen Thubten) and Steve W. (Gen Samden) – had to be removed due to sexual misconduct committed with several nuns and lay women. Both had vows of celibacy and were either deliberately misusing or misinterpreting higher tantric teachings to justify sexual exploitation of their followers.
- NKT has never given clear information about the two ex-deputy spiritual directors and NKT members find out through rumour and gossip, mainly at NKT festivals. They are told not to let it disturb their minds.
- Many other high level NKT teachers have also been involved in sexual misconduct, showing that they are poorly supported within the tradition, and many have misconceptions about what a vow of celibacy actually covers.
- Ex-residents of NKT Dharma centres report having been required to sign away their rights as tenants, illegally. Many were told that the centres had the right to evict them without notice, for example.
- It is commonly reported amongst past and present NKT members that many people who move into NKT centres give up their paid jobs to go on benefits. They then work unpaid for the centres while deceiving the welfare/benefits agencies of their status. Monks and nuns are told not to wear their robes to the Job Centre when they sign on.
- NKT monks and nuns are not actually ordained as monks and nuns according to a vital Buddhist text known as Vinaya. Fully ordained monks and nuns under the Vinaya have over two hundred specific vows, while NKT monks and nuns have 10 vows, several of which are very vague. Many Buddhist schools do not accept NKT ordination as valid.
Ex NKT members strongly suggest that potential new members do their own research before considering a commitment to this New Religious Movement.
Those seeking independent information can contact the British-based research group INFORM.
Appendix
Statements by Buddhists
- Australian Sangha Association Statement by ASA (July 2008)
- How Buddhists view the protests of NKT/WSS
- Declaration of Expulsion of Kelsang Gyatso from Sera Je Monastery by the General Assembly of Sera Je Monastery, August 22, 1996
- To the Tibetan Buddhists around the world and fellow Tibetan compatriots within and outside Tibet by Sera Je Dratsang, Sera Monastic University, P.O. Bylakuppe – 571104, Distt. Mysore (K.S.), South India (no date)
Related Topics
- Are NKT monks and nuns authentic?
- How important is the Vinaya?
- Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy & NKT
- Western Shugden Society – unlocked
- The New Kadampa Tradition
- Experiences with the New Kadampa Tradition and Kelsang Gyatso
Critical Newspaper Articles about the New Kadampa Tradition
- Battle of the Buddhists by Andrew Brown, The Independent (July 15, 1996) – PDF Copy
- Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian (July 6, 1996) – PDF Copy
- Call to close sect’s benefit loophole by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian (July 13, 1996)
- Sect disrobes British monk – The Guardian – (Aug 15, 1996)
- Cult Mystery by Newsweek, Tony Clifton (April 28, 1997)
- Death threats to Dalai Lama blamed on rival Buddhist sect by The Sidney Morning Herald, (November 16, 2002)
- Dalai Lama faced with death threats by Washington Times (Nov 22, 2003)
Video
- BBC Documentary “An Unholy Row“
Open Letters by Kelsang Gyatso
- Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s reply to Newsweek “False Accusations Against the Innocent” – PDF-Copy from WebArchive
- Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s “Open Letter to the Dalai Lama” (Dec 9, 1997) – PDF-Copy from WebArchive
- Open letter from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief, Washington Times (Nov 25, 2002)
- Open letter from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to Tom Burton, Executive Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald (Nov 27, 2002)
Author: EKC – a member of the New Kadampa Survivors.
Haven’t we seen all this before? – yes, because NKT produced a response and then even another three part response commenting on all these points. It’s the same old points!
A growing number of people are also joining the NKT – but then, it’s not good to focus on that, is it?
About the vows – “several of which are very vague” is rubbish! They are very clear and encompass many different things. They have the same meaning as all the vows and commitments of a fully ordained monk or nun in the Tibetan tradition. As Geshe Kelsang once said the vows themselves are very short but their practice is very extensive.
If the person who wrote this was once ordained I’m not surprised that they disrobed if they didn’t know how to practice. However, that’s their responsibility.
“It is commonly reported amongst past and present NKT members that many people who move into NKT centres give up their paid jobs to go on benefits. They then work unpaid for the centres while deceiving the welfare/benefits agencies of their status” – this is also incorrect and misleading. I assume you mean centers in the UK? Most people where I live work full time outside the centre and the others are doing courses with the aim of getting jobs. NKT Centers do not exploit the benefits system, this is the kind of slander that the New Kadampa Truth site can take care of.
Thank you, DST.
It is fine that you disagree.
Regarding the NKT vows indeed some are “very vague”. While the first five vows are real vows according to the Buddha, the last five ‘vows’ are mere aspirations and deserve to be called vague. What are these five vague ‘vows’:
1. practise contentment,
2. reduce my desire for worldly pleasures,
3. abandon engaging in meaningless activities,
4. maintain the commitments of refuge,
5. and practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration and wisdom.
see: http://info-buddhism.com/#Ordination
Maybe you explain to me the border or boundaries of the ‘vows’? When do you transgress the ‘vow’ to abandon engaging in meaningless activities’ or ‘practise contentment’?
While the first five vows are real vows as laid down by the Buddha which have clear explanations of what are the actions which transgress them (the boundaries) and what are the consequences if they are transgressed; and if and how they are purified etc.; all this is not present in those five additional NKT ‘vague vows’. For these ‘vows’ there is no lineage, they are vague aspirations.
Because GKG said: “the vows themselves are very short but their practice is very extensive.” this makes his claim not more valid. Every body can say every thing. The fully ordained monks from the Australian Sangha Association disagree with the NKT point of view:
see: http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
Geshe Tashi Tsering stated:
There is no need to become cynical about the person who wrote this information, what the person states here is correct.
Also the last sentence “It is commonly reported amongst past and present NKT members that many people who move into NKT centres give up their paid jobs to go on benefits….” has my full support, we had the same situation in Germany.
Please remind that the person who wrote this information is connected with a pool of information provided by former NKT members and teachers and is based on a world wide experience within NKT.
Regarding the slander of NKT using the UK benefits system…this allegation was fully investigated by the UK Govt’s Dept of Employment in the 1990′s in connection with the main Centre in Cumbria. No wrongdoing was found.
As dorjeshugdentruth says most of the information in this article is bot out of date and false. It can be verified by checking with the NKT Truth site.
Hi Kadampa,
if you have a reference for this, an independent 3rd party source, e.g. the UK Govt’s Dept of Employment’s statement or report, please be so kind to add it here.
Actual independent 3rd party sources state:
see
http://info-buddhism.com/#Growth_and_financing
The NKT ‘truth’ site is no reliable source because
1. it has no independent 3rd party sources to verify their claims
2. the ‘NKT truth’ site is anonymous and has no author or person in charge
2. the ‘truth’ site is presenting wrong and misleading ‘facts’, like that FPMT and HHDL would be behind the criticism NKT is faced with, and the site slanders some critics
These points do not indicate the ‘NKT truth’ site as being a reliable source.
Kadampa,
I am not bothered what conclusion the UK Government came to. Their hands are probably tied. I doubt whether they would like to get involved in anything with a religious side – too messy.
I don’t look to Government as the upholder of any kind of morality – they deregulated the financial markets – need i say more.
For me it’s a question of honesty. When you sign on you also sign a declaration saying that you are actively seeking work. This question is simply a question for the individual.
‘Am I happy taking money from the government (the UK tax payer – so that’s actually a lot of people) and in doing so say i am looking for work when in fact i am not looking for work but working fulltime and unpaid for a dharma centre’.
‘If I am ordained is it ok to go to the job centre in lay clothes – why am i not wearing my robes’.
But from little acorns of personal choices grows …
The dharma centre benefits from this because it obtains an income from rent and teachings etc and can use that income as the basis of paying a mortgage. If it gets enough income through the work of enough volunteers it can buy a bigger centre and to pay the mortgage on the bigger centre it then needs more residents. Residents who work full time and cannot do voluntary work are not much use to a big centre that needs people giving their time for it to function correctly.
So it goes on and on. When an established Centre has paid off it’s mortgage, closes and is then sold for 2.25 million – the money goes where – to the New Centres Development fund. Yet other centres apply for lottery grants to restore their buildings.
But this is ok because resident teachers tell residents that the UK Government is paying for them to get enlightened and is actually helping to free all beings from suffering. I wonder if Tony Blair or Gordon Brown knew this – both practicing Christians.
Funny but I thought the basis for enlightenment was to practice virtue and abandon non virtue.
Yes but all things are relative – this is skillful means you know…………
Regarding the claiming of benefits to finance centres, this definately happened here in Wales during the 1990s – people encouraged to work for the NKT whilst claiming unemployment/housing benefits.
It also happened in the failed Amitabha centre near Minehead.
The origin of the latter 5 Kadampa ordination vows is explained here:
http://www.dharmaprotector.org/vinaya.html
comment TP
For the sake of balance I approved this link. However, the explanation is misleading. The Sutras of the Perfection of Wisdom belong to the third scriptural basket, the explanation of concentration belong to the second scriptural basket. But the the Vinaya is explained in the first scriptural basket. You can not explain how a car works by using a manual for a plane or a manual for a space shuttle.
The explanation is highly misleading and no Geshe, scholar and Vinaya master would confirm or support such a self-made explanation. It is just the attempt to justify the NKT ordination as being a valid monk’s or nun’s ordination. There is no such thing like “Kadampa ordination vows” this is self-made, self-created. NKT is not the continuation of the old Kadampa school too.
Best Wishes, TP
You know, people who criticise the NKT nowadays are necessarily ‘ex’ NKT and therefore they have no idea what is going on now. They are holding onto an old and wrong idea of NKT anyway because they had some unpleasant experience and have an axe to grind.
We get ‘during the 1990s’ or ‘According to Bunting’ – at least ten years old and not even reliable anyway, or ‘we had the same situation in Germany’
It’s all about the past – just like blaming modern day Germany for what Hitler did 60-70 years ago! Because of impermanence your criticism is irrelevant.
comment TP
Fight the Smears ;-)
Kadampa wrote:
“Regarding the slander of NKT using the UK benefits system…this allegation was fully investigated by the UK Govt’s Dept of Employment in the 1990’s in connection with the main Centre in Cumbria. No wrongdoing was found.”
Again I will say that the NKT official position and what goes on and is encouraged in NKT centres are two very different things – one of the reasons it is so difficult to know what NKT really stands for.
I was living in a Dharma centre in about 2004/5 where a more experienced NKT practitioner was open about teaching new residents how to stay on benefits without actually lying (not actually possible but he made it seem “honest”). He got this info from people at other centres over a period of 8 or more years. Things like if you fill in application forms then bin them you can honestly tell the DSS you have filled in forms for jobs.
This guy is fairly respected in NKT and takes official photos at festivals.
Two of the people he was coaching on deceiving the DSS were 21 yo and 23 yo respectively. One of these was ordained (the younger one) and was told not to wear his robes when he went to sign on.
As Tenzin pointed out, I am a member of a large group of mainly ex-NKT people, many of whom confirm they witnessed similar things.
I belive the NKT was investigated for Housing Benefit fraud at one point and had to make changes in policy (this may be what you refer to above). Still, many Dharma centre mortgages are mainly or partly paid by resident’s housing benefit. My own brother, in the last year, gave up a good job to work unpaid (ie on DSS) for a NKT centre.
I do not talk crap but experience of myself and many others.
I notice that the line of reasoning used to back up the absence of detected benefit misuse ie lack of evidence found by an independent body in the UK doesnt suit WSS/NKT when it comes to Amnesty International failing to find evidence of Human Rights abuses around the current Dharma Protector issues in India.
This is what gets me:how come it’s alright to prevaricate if it’s in the NKT’s interest?Is ‘lying’ for one thing OK if you have the agenda of a spiritual organisation?
My reading of GKG’s works has failed to find such justification and my understanding is that residence in the Centres requires compliance with the laws of the land whether they suit you or not.
There would be some evidence here(credible evidence):the reported speech of a person with first hand knowledge of the incident,that the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth may not have been forthcoming all the time with regard to benefit seeking and the basis on which is it awarded. Indignant denial wont work with people who have witnessed the behaviour.
Thanks for allowing debate.
Dorjeshugdentruth wrote:
“About the vows – “several of which are very vague” is rubbish! ”
and Tenzin replied outlining the 5 which are vague including these:
“1. practise contentment,
2. reduce my desire for worldly pleasures,
3. abandon engaging in meaningless activities,”
I ask only that someone explain each of these, one succinct statement each, as to what each encompasses precisely.
Vinaya vows are specific, some even appearing to us specific to the point of ridiculous if we don’t study their intention. The point of having so many specific vows is to help monks and nuns have awareness of everything they do.
The vagueness of NKT vows gives rise to a lot of guilt rather than awareness. Should I be trying to be content when there are things happening that my conscience can’t agree with, for example. Having now left I realise NKT kept control of me for quite some time with these confusing commitments.
And I was told before I ordained that it wasn’t necessary for me to understand or even know what the vows were as I would learn as I went along. How unprepared was I? And I know it was the same for a lot of others.
DorjeShugdenTruth also wrote this:
“If the person who wrote this was once ordained I’m not surprised that they disrobed if they didn’t know how to practice. However, that’s their responsibility.”
Given the very high level of disrobing in NKT I know I was far from the first or the last to not know how to practice. I would say if NKT wants genuinely committed monks and nuns to remain ordained then *NKT* needs to take responsibility. Those who ordain are trying very hard to take responsibility. I’ve never known anyone ordain in NKT who didn’t believe themselves to be a sincere committed practitioner. So why do so many give it up? Where does that sincerity go? I think it’s a general lack of support and too high expectations being placed on people who had too little preparation for what they (we) took on.
Other traditions have gradual ordination processes where a few vows are taken at a time, and some have temporary ordination where one can try being a monk or nun for one to three years – and monks and nuns are supported and valued by the traditions practically and spiritually. NKT is open that it provides no practical support for its monks and nuns, and spiritual support is at the same level as it is for lay practitioners despite the vastly different roles the ordained soon find expected of them by other students and the general public.
Sadly for a majority it just can’t work out.
Dear friends,
did you know that in Glasgow (Scotland) one in five of the male population is on benefits?
Do you care?
Would you like me to research some more fascinating benefit statistics for you?
Need I say more.
Adam
Adam,
please research if the statistics are higher in NKT Dharma centres.
Lol.
Well you offered …!
The two aspects (wisdom and method) of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras were commented upon by Nagarjuna and Asanga, respectively. Asanga is a lineage Guru of the vast path (i.e., method), which includes the Vinaya Pitaka (or “basket”). Nagarjuna also gave commentary to the Sutra’s implicit teachings on the stages of the vast path in his “Precious Garland of Advice for the King.”
Asanga’s teachings come from Buddha Maitreya, and Nagarjuna’s teachings come from Buddha Manjushri, both of whom in turn received their teachings directly from Buddha Shakyamuni.
I mention this because people tend to respect things more if they know that they are not just “made up.” For example, people don’t read Asanga’s branches for attaining tranquil abiding–the source of the disputed vows–and disparage them saying, “Now, that’s just vague!” GKG gives commentary to them in ‘Joyful Path of Good Fortune,’ beginning on page 486.
comment TP
Dear emptymountains.
After NKT rewrote already their own history, it appears to me they are rewriting now also the teachings of the Buddha and the Vinaya? Not only this even Tibetan history is rewritten by them (see: Lama Policy – Freedom from the Drug). Strange stuff.
What will be the outcome of these spins than more and more delusion, confusion and mental isolation from the Three Jewels?
It is an interesting PR stunt of NKT to claim directly or indirectly that the Vinaya is in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s lamrim text. No serious Buddhist would agree with such a claim.
In general it is correct what you say that Nagarjuna wrote this and that and Asanga this and that, but the Vinaya, the Pratimoksha, the rules and procedures for the Buddhist monks and nuns are not explained in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras nor in the Precious Garland, nor in Buddha Maitreya’s / Asanga’s five treatises but in the First Basket, the Vinaya, by the Buddha himself. This basket is not present in NKT, it’s absent.
The Vinaya is not seen as debatelable in Tibetan Buddhism because it is based on Buddha’s faultless direct perception of cause and effect (the law of Karma) and only an omniscient mind can understand it fully. NKT holds therefore an incomplete lineage. Moreover, the NKT monks and nuns are not properly ordained Buddhist monks and nuns. This is very simple. The last five ‘vows’ – I think it is better to call them ‘five aspirations’ – are indeed made up because they are not laid down by the Buddha in the Pratimoksha or Vinaya as monk’s and nun’s vows.
There is no reference in the Buddhist canon for these five NKT ‘vows’. If you claim further these ‘vows’ would be authentic then please be so kind to offer a precise scriptural reference of the Buddhist canon where exactly they are specified as being authentic monks and nuns vows.
If you do unbiased research the you’ll recognize, these five NKT ‘vows’ can’t be found in any of the three baskets. We had already some discussion here:
Are NKT monks and nuns authentic?
How important is the Vinaya?
Thanks for your contribution.
Adam,
Don’t you see the trap you have fallen into. My post was about how one personally makes the decision to practice moral discipline (in this case not lying) and then signing on, declaring one is actively seeking work and then working full time for the centre without actually looking for work and then justifying this by reasoning that as a Buddhist one can see the teachings as relative – that there is a bigger picture – some higher goal. This is the debate.
Your reply…..
“did you know that in Glasgow (Scotland) one in five of the male population is on benefits?”
Seeing a point of view as harming something you are trying to uphold, and responding with a counter allegation to invalidate the P.O.V/discussion and thus ending debate before any debate begins by saying ‘need i say more’.
My reply would be – but you cannot say that the people of Glasgow are Buddhists.
Hi.
Hope everyone is well.
Ok, must say I`m a bit nervous leaving comments on this subject, I have seen so many friends fall out…so many ugly things said and done in the name Dharma because of this 400 year old debate that rightly speaking has no place in Western culture.
Must point out that I have no personal axe to grind, I personally find Geshe Kelsangs books beautiful and extremely useful, but I do not study his book on the Shugden practice. I`m not a Shugden practioner but have no problem with those who engage in said practice.
Now the rub as they say. Many years ago I live at the “Manjushri Centre” in England Cumbria when it was still FPMT, when Teachers from all traditions would teach…even Nyingma Teachers, I was there ! In them days Geshe Kelsang was a minor teacher, one of many who taught there ( but even in them days there were his more fanatical followers ), then the big shake pu came, power shifts as Geshe Kesangs follwers strove for power against the FPMT ( sounds harsh but this is what happened, the truth is sometimes painful), Geshe Kelsangs follwers wone…the others Lamas left and Teachers from others traditions stopped coming. The a few years later out came the NKT ( witch rightly should be called the NNKT , the New New Kadampa Tradition…a joke )…..Eventually for personal reasons I left Manjushri…But live in other NKT Centres…things were not too bad in the early days of the NKT.
Then things started to change and become uncomfortable for me personally…..whispers about Geshe Kelsang being a living Buddha….about his omniscience and that he knew the goings on in ALL of his Centres at the same time…the emphasis on money making using Dorje Shugden….the Dharma book burning of Non-Geshe kesang books ( god knows how many books they destroyed )….suggestions that nothing but confusion would result from reading other material….the outright hostility towards HHDL and hatred of the Nyingmpas Banning Of HHDL photos…I refused to get rid of mine lol … People who are only Dharma Babies with no more than 12 months experience of Dharma and only 6 months of NKT ordination SAT ON THE THRONE AND TEACHING !, often these people were only in their early 20`s ! People Giving their homes to the NKT and then being evicted from their homes a few yeras later……the list goes on and on…I was there and seen there things I promise.
But I still lived in an NKT Centre, why because I had many sincere friends and still do within the NKT. But never having been an NKT member I supose something had to snap. On Geshe Jampa Tekchoks last visit to the UK an order came down (we are told ) by Geshe Kelsang to the effect that anyone who goes to see Geshe Tekchok will have to leave his Centres…I tried to debate this with some of the people who ran the Centre I lived in…some were very sympathetic
and not comfortable with this situation…but to no avail….so I went to the train station to meet my Lama, when I returned home ( the Centre I lived in at the time ) I was greeted at the front door with an eviction notice !
I was evicted because I went to see my Lama and Ordaining Abbot Geshe Jampa Tekchok !!!
So there I was a homeless Monk…so I went to stay with my Mother ( apparently l`m the boomarang generation lol )
This is My experience of the NKT ( NNKT).
For you NKT`ers who recognise who I am you know that I am telling the truth…mental projections aside..LOL
Did not HHDL say somewhere ” My religion is Love and Compassion” ?
May everyone be happy, may everyone be free from misery,
may no one ever be separated from their happiness, may everyone have equinimity free from hatred and attachment.
comment TP
Thanks Jampa. Geshe Jampa Tegchok was the second Geshe who was installed by Lama Yeshe at Manjushri Institute, he led the 12 Year Geshe Study Program while Geshe Kelsang led the General Program. Geshe Jampa Tegchok was asked to be abbot of Nalanda Monastery in France and became later the abbot of Sera. Therefore after two years Geshe Jampa Tegchok was replaced by Geshe Konchog who led the 12 year Geshe program until NKT was founded in 1991 and GKG ‘undermined’ (Kay) the teachings of Geshe Konchog. That there were two Geshes, and GKG just one of them, was never told to us. NKT is not honest with their history as also the resent youTube video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzrY6TxQII it wrongly claims he brought “Kadampa Buddhism” to the West, doesn’t say anything about FPMT and the other Geshe etc.
A summery of the history by researcher Kay can be read here: http://info-buddhism.com/#Historical_background_of_the_formation_of_NKT If you know more or my information are wrong please correct or add your information. Thanks TP
Dorjeshugdentruth,
Your statement about criticisms of the NKT being in the past and that the organization has changed substantially which therefore invalidates any criticism.
So that quote from Thurman, how long ago was that?
What was it that Bob Marley said …..
“If you don’t know you’re history you don’t know where you’re coming from”.
There is a huge difference between making NKT changes of policy and actually changing the operation of an organization. So you changed the internal rules making it the responsibility of the EPC to oversee the moral discipline of the resident teacher. So how come that since this change of policy the replacement for Thogme ran away with a resident from the centre and the EPC at the time is now the RT. How long is the past – 8 months.
Again I am being critical of the organization and not the individuals concerned.
I think one needs to look inward as to why these things happen and not pretending that they will not happen again just because these problems are now in the past.
Dear EKC,
thank you for your comment which did indeed make me laugh out loud!
I will now have to humbly retract my offer to research benefit statistics, as I have insufficient interest in the subject.
Dear The Fool,
I think that you know how self-destructive and pointless your attitude and behaviour is. You even refer to yourself as “The Fool.”
I can only agree with you that your attitude and behaviour is completely foolish!
I feel sorry for you because I quite liked you when you visited us in St. Audries and I have no hard feelings towards you now. I can only continue to hope and pray that you manage to find something more constructive and worthwhile to do with your life.
Best Wishes,
Adam
comment TP
Adam I didn’t read what The Fool wrote, however I know his pov from other occasions, and it didn’t sound foolish in any way. The tone how you address him here is exactly the way how actual NKT members try to put down former NKT members by claiming these former members are somewhat lost and not constructive or disgruntled or mental ill (see also the NKT ‘truth’ site and other occasions). After putting the other person down they show a portion of pity which is mixed with arrogance and makes known how compassionate oneself is.
This attitude is called “praising one-self and disparaging others” and is a root downfall for bodhisattvas yet very common and unrecognised in NKT. I am not sure if you are aware of this. Real compassion does never put another person down – besides the other persons suffers on heavy pride.
I like the name “the Fool” it shows much more humbleness than the many NKT pseudonyms who claim to be Buddhas, to be Kadampas, to have wisdom or to know truths.
Best Wishes TP
The Infants and the Wise
Looking on this pure being whose compassion and wisdom illuminates this world and the worlds beyond, the powerful Arya Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso, the unfortunate ones’ delusions appear crystal clear.
Based on ignorance and misleading friends they mistakenly perceive their own pride, dishonesty, duplicity and lack of compassion to be the faults of the Noble One.
The infants perceive themselves as wise and the wise ones to be childish, and driven by their deluded perception they ruin the great purpose of their life.
While the wise ones are known as being humble and praise the wise and not themselves, the childish ones are full of arrogance and praise themselves and disparage the wise.
What need is there to say more? Look at the difference between them.
Here is the sound of the wise who praises the wise:
Here is the sound of the childish ones who disparage the wise:
and who praise themselves:
*Although this refers to the ancient teachers like Atisha, NKT presents themselves as the continuation of those high masters and their lineage and claim that Geshe Kelsang has brought this lineage to the West. They refer to themselves, as having the “pure lineage”, as the “Kadampas” of our time and as being “pure practitioners” while the Dalai Lama and other masters, including Lama Yeshe who invited Geshe Kelsang to his Center Manjushri Institute, are “mixing dharma with politics” what NKT thinks they don’t do. (see also Mixing Dharma with Politics and The History of NKT)
The Buddha, Tibetan Dhammapada:
Intimate Friends
1
Wise ones, do not befriend
The faithless, who are mean
And slanderous and cause schism.
Don’t take bad people as your companions.
2
Wise ones, be intimate
With the faithful who speak gently,
Are ethical and do much listening.
Take the best as companions.
3
Do not devote yourself
To bad companions and wicked beings.
Devote yourself to holy people,
And to spiritual friends.
4
By devotion to people like that
You will do goodness, not wrong.
5
By devotion to faithful and wise people
Who have heard much and pondered many things,
By heeding their fine words, even from afar,
Their special qualities are attained here.
6
Since those devoted to inferiors degenerate,
Those to equals mark time,
And those to great ones attain sanctity,
Be devoted to those great ones.
7
By devotion to ethical,
Calm, and most knowledgeable great beings,
One attains to a greatness
Greater even than the great.
8
Just as the clean kusha grass
That wraps a rotten fish
Will also start to rot,
So too will those devoted to an evil person.
9
Just as a leaf folded
To contain an incense offering
Also becomes sweet,
So too will those devoted to the virtuous.
10
When one does no wrong yet
Is devoted to evil people,
One will still be abused,
For others suppose that this one too is bad.
11
The devotee acquires the same faults
As the person not worthy of devotion,
Like an untainted arrow smeared
With the poison of a tainted sheath.
12
Steadfast ones who fear the taint of faults,
Do not befriend bad people.
By close reliance and devotion
To one’s companion,
Soon one becomes just like
The object of one’s devotion.
13
Therefore, knowing that one’s devotion
Is like the casing of the fruit,
The wise devote themselves to holy,
Not to unholy people,
And drawn along the monk’s path
They find the end of misery.
14
Just as a spoon cannot taste the sauce,
Infantile ones do not understand
The doctrine, even after
A lifetime of devotion to the wise.
15
Just as the tongue can taste the sauce.
Those with wisdom can understand
The entire doctrine, after just
A brief attendance on the wise.
16
Because infantile ones lack eyes to see,
Though they devote their lifetimes
To the wise, they never
Understand the entire doctrine.
Those with wisdom fully understand
The entire doctrine after just
A brief attendance on the wise.
They have eyes to see.
17
Though they devote their lifetimes
To wise beings, infantile ones
Do not understand the doctrine
Of the Buddha in its entirety.
Those with wisdom understand
The doctrine of the Buddha
In its entirety after just
A brief attendance on the wise.
18
Even just one meaningful line
Sets the wise ones to their task,
But all the teaching that the Buddhas gave
Won’t set infantile ones to work.
19
The intelligent will understand
A hundred lines from one,
But for the infantile beings
A thousand lines do not suffice for one.
20
[If one must chose between them],
Better the wise even if unfriendly.
No infant is suited to be a friend.
Sentient beings intimate with
The infant-like are led to hell.
21
Wise persons are those who know
Infantile ones for what they are:
‘Infantile ones’ are those
Who take infants to be the wise.
22
The censure of the wise
Is far preferable
To the eulogy or praise
Of the infant.
23
Devotion to infants brings misery.
Since they are like one’s foe,
It is best to never see or hear
Or have devotion for such people.
24
Like meeting friends, devotion to
The steadfast causes happiness.
25
Therefore, like the revolving stars and moon,
Devote yourself to the steadfast, moral ones
Who have heard much, who draw on what is best -
The kind, the pure, the best superior ones.
- translated by Gareth Sparham, The Tibetan Dhammapada (Wisdom Basic Book – Orange Series), ISBN-10: 0861710126
Cheers Dude….
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/basics/fool.shtml
St. Audries?
Never been there……….. I don’t know who you think I am.
Dear The Fool,
Ok, I take it all back. Since I don’t know who you are I clearly made a mistake.
I respect your right to make any points you see fit to.
I don’t care who signs on and who doesn’t, or what they do or don’t say to do so. The subject bores me.
Best Wishes,
Adam
Dear The Fool,
I would like to apologise for my earlier remarks which now seem hasty and inappropriate.
As regards claiming to be looking for work when one is signing on when one isn’t. I don’t know. I did this myself for a while and I didn’t much enjoy it.
I don’t really know what else to say. However, I do believe that society should be compassionate and I don’t find the idea of people living off benefits morally reprehensible.
Best Wishes,
Adam
Thanks Adam, yes we should be compassionate. Thanks for your kind response and apologize in the heat of our discussion :-) Best Wishes, t
Also, concerning NKT ordination, I personally know an individual nun who sits on the throne and gives Dharma teachings ( well, reads from Geshe Kesangs books and then paraphrases the material … ) who lives at home with her husband ! No matter what anyone may say, this is absurd, how on earth can anyone call that ordination ? This should put an end to all questions concerning the validity of NKT ordination.
The Old Kadampa School and Monasticism – Atisha’s point of view
Atisha’s presentation of the Dharma and his followers became known as the Kadam or Kadampa School in Tibet. His Lamp for The Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathapradipa) is the prototype of the genre of Lam Rim (Stages of the Path) literature, and is held in special regard by Tibetans.
The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (Byang-chub lam-gyi sgron-ma, Skt. Bodhipathapradipam) by Atisha explains his view on monasticism (Buddhist monks and nuns)
Stanzas 20-21 state:
The root text and its commentary by Atisha are structured in three parts: I Higher Conduct, II Higher Meditation, III Higher Insight
Part One, Higher Conduct, has four chapters, the third chapter deals with monasticism. It includes
- what are monks and what are lay vows,
- how the Mahayana is related to the Hinayana,
- what procedure of ordination there are,
- how to keep monastic life pure from defilements,
- what ways there are to give up the Pratimoksha vows,
- what the transgressions are,
- how to avoid transgressions,
- what transgressions can be purified,
- acts of the community
- how to purify transgressions which can be purified,
- what are favourable or unfavourable inner factors and
- means for keeping a pure monk’s life,
- and what is the meaning of ‘a pure monk’s life’.
Some of the points are explained briefly and Atisha advises to use the Vinaya scriptures for further clarification.
Atisha explains in Chapter III, “The Monastic Life”:
This passage clarifies why the seven classes of Pratimoksha vows form the basis for the Bodhisattva vows.
While Atisha accepts seven types of Pratimoksha, Je Tsongkhapa accepts eight types of Pratimoksha the difference is that Astisha doesn’t accept the vows for one day as a Pratimoksha ordination.
Then Atisha states as lay Devotee vows:
1. refrain from killing
2. refrain from stealing
3. refrain from lying
4. refrain from unchastity (which includes the celibate Devotee)
5. refrain from liquor
Regarding (Buddhist) monks and nuns he states:
“The training of the Monk is such that of two hundred and fifty-three [rules], twenty-seven must be confessed…”
“The Nun-candidate correctly observes two hundred and forty rules…”
(Atisha belongs to the Mahasamghika Vinaya lineage and the Tibetans follow the Mahamulasarvastavada lineage, therefore there are slight differences in how to count the vows.)
Atisha states:
Putting Atisha’s view into Context with NKT
These quotes and the complete commentary of Atisha, as well as Atisha’s own example make clear they are in line with the Teachings of the Buddha in the Vinaya / Pratimoksha, they acknowledge the difficulties of pure observance but stress also the vital importance of the complete Vinaya and Pratimoksha for the survival of Buddhism. It is also clear that for Atisha a monk is someone who holds the 253 vows and not ten vows.
Not only Atisha stressed the importance of the Vinaya but also Je Tsongkhapa, and both did all what they could do to develop monastic life and observance of the vows. Both were fully ordained monks as well. Neither they nor any Vianya master or well educated monastic in Indian or Tibetan history changed the Vinaya how it is done radically by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in his organisation “New Kadampa Tradition”.
Geshe Kelsang argues that there would be a “tradition of ordination explained by Geshe Potowa”. But there is no such thing. Geshe Potowa didn’t establish a 10 vows ordination nor do the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras explain a ten vow ordination. Neither Geshe Potowa nor any Kadampa teacher created a “Kadampa ordination” or “Kadampa ordination vows” nor is there a phenomenon like “Kadampa monk”. All this is new reated by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso himself.
Such claims and interpretation spin the facts and lack the support of lineage and scriptures. In a way such claims even discredit Geshe Potowa and other Kadampa teachers who felt no need to make the vows more suited to a life “compatible with the norms of society” as it is the aim of the NKT ordination.
I fully agree with the Statement of the Australian Sangha Association:
Thoughts on the ‘Purity’ of the Dharma
The uncommon emphasize of NKT on “Purity of the Dharma” is not needed and may be misleading and even dangerous because it invites to dualistic clinging of inherent purity and impurity.
The Dharma is pure, there is no such thing as “impure Dharma”, therefore to establish a conception of “pure dharma” is not needed and has also no support in the scriptures.
Arya Maitreya states in the Uttara Tantra Shastra:
Also Je Tsongkhapa makes no distinction in “pure” and “impure” Dharma. He states instead that the student of the Dharma must have: “the mental force to distinguish between correct paths of good explanation and counterfeit paths of false explanation, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have the intelligence that understands both of these. By this account you will give up what is unproductive, and then adopt what is productive.” (Lam Rim Chen Mo, p 75ff, Snow Lion Publications)
I think, the overemphasize of “pure Dhrama” and “purity of lineage” in NKT and among some Shugden lamas is the driving force of what I see as NKT’s fundamentalist and sectarian attitude. It would be good if such misleading concepts are questioned and debated in NKT. All lineages are bundles of different lineages (a mix of different transmissions) and all the great masters are non-sectarian, even if they follow only one lineage. NKT holds only a small fraction of the Gelug teachings and the old Kadam school, the works of their founders and of the Buddha are almost completely absent, the Vinaya – seen as “the root of the doctrine” – is not present. There is no need and maybe it is probably mistaken to label this “pure lineage” and “complete path”.
In fact it is far more honest and according to reality to state: “NKT is the school of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and it includes basic teachings of the Gelug school and he offers a presentation of the Gelug teachings which he feels is suited to the Modern World. He labels his presentation ‘Kadampa Buddhism’ to inspire his students to emulate the ancient Kadam masters.”
Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa concentrated to receive teachings from all the great Buddhist masters of their time and were not attached to any particular lineage or single master nor did they emphasize a “purity of lineage” or a conception of “not mixing lineages”. This is all very new-fangled and questionable.
sources:
- The Complete Works of Atisa Sri Dipamkara Jnana, Jo-Bo-Rje by Atisa, Richard Sherburne
- Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra with Commentary by Arya Maitreya
- NKT truth website
Cheers Adam, No problems.
My point is simply the grey area between following Buddha’s teachings and fulfilling the wishes of a Buddhist organization. It can be all too easy to work for a religious organization – believing we are practicing the teachings – and yet we may be contradicting the essence or morality of the teachings themselves. This applies to all religious organizations. This is my general point.
Those who do not profess to practice morality or religion are not under the microscope here.
Why am I singling out the NKT. Because this is the organization I have experience of and because they are the organization who grasp at their own morality and point the finger at the immorality of others.
If the organization reversed this situation then I firmly believe all the criticism would stop. When one runs out of wood there is nothing to burn.
Many ex and present NKT people are really saddened by
this campaign of vilification of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama and the plight of the Tibetan people.
The language used against him in public by people wearing Buddhist robes shows a puerile face of the NKT more suited
to the ignorant and angry.
Please keep debating and informing people so that doubts are dispelled and propoganda is challenged.
Thanks
VJ_Kumara, a member of the New Kadampa Survivors, posted the following link to an essay which content I feel is relevant in trying to understand the dynamics and outlook of NKT/WSS, especially as presented at the New Kadampa Truth – Fighting the Smears – site:
“What the Siege Mentality Is
One of the interesting social-political-psychological phenomenon which can be observed in different societies pertains to the experience of being under siege, i.e., feeling as if the rest of the world has highly negative intentions towards one’s own society or that one’s own society is surrounded by a hostile world. The focus is on “negative intentions” and “the rest of the world”. “Negative intentions” refer to the desire and motivation of the world to inflict harm or to hurt the society, so that they imply a threat to the society’s well being…”
for more see:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/siege_mentality/?nid=1081
For the sake of clarification.
The Lineages of Buddhist monks and Nuns and the Lineages of Buddhist Ordination
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.
(I add this also to the former post which discusses this issue.)
With regard to NKT ordination and its validity -
NKT is not alone in condensing the vinaya into interpretive versions of the vinaya as in Zen 16 precepts, which are also interpreted as being Mahayana precepts.
Precepts
The sixteen bodhisattva precepts are a set of vows of ethical conduct taken many times in a Zen practitioner’s life.
They derive originally from the vinaya, monastic vows taken on ordination during the Buddha’s time (250 precepts for monks, 348 for nuns). Lay people took only the first five vows. T
The bodhisattva precepts used in the Mahayana tradition emphasize conduct to benefit others, and are taken by both monastic and lay practitioners.
The short set of sixteen precepts we use in our tradition were formulated by Dogen Zenji, the founder of Soto Zen in Japan. They form the basis of several ceremonies: jukai (receiving the precepts), priest ordination, marriage and funeral. Many Zen centers chant the precepts once a month on the full moon, in a ceremony of reflection, repentance and renewal. The precepts are inexhaustible mindfulness practices.
They are also lifetime koans. Norman’s approach to the precepts is warm and down-to-earth, but also spacious and insightful. He helps us to apply the vivid moment-to-moment awareness of our zazen practice in our daily life of work, family and relationships.
Here’s the list of the 16 Moral Precepts of Soto Zen, with explanation below:
The Three Treasures
The first three precepts are simply the Three Treasures:
1, I take refuge in the Buddha – The teacher
2, I take refuge in the Dharma – The Buddha’s teachings
3, I take refuge in the Sangha – The Buddhist community, past and present
Often this will be recited three times, based on an ancient Buddhist formula and tradition called the Vandana Tisarana in Sanskrit.
The Three Pure Precepts
These three precepts are general injunctions to abstain from evil and to practice good, not just for one’s self but also others:
1, Not Creating Evil
2, Practicing Good
3, Actualizing Good For Others
The Ten Grave Precepts
These are the actual 10 Major Precepts from the Brahma Net Sutra (see below):
1 Affirm life; Do not kill
2 Be giving; Do not steal
3 Honor the body; Do not misuse sexuality
4 Manifest truth; Do not lie
5 Proceed clearly; Do not cloud the mind
6 See the perfection; Do not speak of others errors and faults
7 Realize self and other as one; Do not elevate the self and blame others
8 Give generously; Do not be withholding
9 Actualize harmony; Do not be angry
10 Experience the intimacy of things; Do not defile the T
Three Treasures
Zen, like many Japanese Buddhist sects, derives ultimately from the state-sanctioned Tendai sect, which intentionally did not follow the ancient Buddhist monastic code, the Vinaya. Instead, Tendai’s founder, Saichō, opted for the Bodhisattva Precepts instead.
Thank you cheyenne for pointing these out. I know that there are differences in the Zen. What I know is, that the (Japanese) government forced the monks to marry and so they had to give up the ordination. Changing the rules due to political forces is a tragic event but does not proof the changes as being valid.
What you portray is no monk’s or nun’s ordination in the lineage of the Buddha, as described in the Vinaya and Pratimoksha. There is already a Bodhisattva ordination, this is based on keeping the Bodhisattva vows.
I think you confuse in the same way as NKT does the Vinaya and the Bodhisattva Ethic. Please note that there are three levels of Ethic, the Vinaya, the Bodhisattva and the Vajrayana Ethic. All three ethics have their respective sources:
- The Vinaya Ethic is laid down in the Vinaya or Pratimoksha Sutra,
- the Bodhisattva Ethic in different Mahayana Sutras,
- and the Vajrayana Ethic is laid down and is described in different Vajrayana Tantras.
All three set of teachings have their own commentary literature and respective lineages. I think it is just ridiculous to confuse these three with each other.
No valid Buddhist commentary (included in the Kanjur und Tengjur) or source – or even the vows of a Bodhisattva or Vajrayana followers – confuse the Bodhisattva or Vajrayana Ethic with the Vinaya Ethic.
It is accepted that they are different, have their respective sources and it is explained how these three set of ethics are lower or higher, and how they harmonize. A Bodhisattva who received the Bodhisattva vows of Bodhisattva ordination is a lay person, except he received the monk or nun ordination according to the Vinaya / Pratimoksha. (I think it is correct to claim I know at least a bit about this, because I studied a lot authoritative sources on all three levels of Ethic and I received teachings about these. I made a summery on all three levels of Ethic available in German language (about 6o pages), see also the reference section in this: PDF-File or Macromedia Flash File).
Those Zen practitioners who are not ordained according to one of the three existing Vinaya lineages,
- the Mula-sarvastavada – Vinaya,
- the Dharmagupta – Vinaya,
- or the Theravada – Vinaya,
are no Buddhist monks or nuns.
Personally I know a female Zen master who is a Buddhist nun, because she is properly ordained according to the Dharmagupta Vinaya lineage as a fully ordained nun (Bhikshuni). This shows too that there are differences in the Zen and that there are ordained Zen practitioners which follow the Vinaya.
The German Sangha Council (and I guess this is also true in all other ordained Buddhist Sangha councils, like the Australian Sangha Association) does not accept people as Buddhist monks or nuns who are not ordained according to the Vinaya or according to one of the three existing ordination lineages respectively.
So what you show is a political instance in Zen and a radical change of course but you have also to research how these changes are accepted among the ordained members of Buddhist monks and nuns.
As far as I know the Brahma Net Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra which includes the Bodhisattva vows. It is no Sutra on the Vinaya or monastic ordination. A Bodhisattva can be either a lay person or a Buddhist monk or nun. Only when such a person is ordained according to the Vinaya / Pratimosksha Sutra, he / she is a Buddhist ordained monk or nun (a renunciate who leads no ‘householder life’). If he/she is not ordained according to the Vinaya / Pratimosksha he / she is no Buddhist nun or monk but a lay person.
I hope this helps for clarification.
Best wishes, t
Tenzin,
Please explain how you maintain the vinaya (all 256 vows)in its entireity within the modern world.
above in my post it says:-
“The sixteen bodhisattva precepts are a set of vows of ethical conduct taken many times in a Zen practitioner’s life.
They derive originally from the vinaya, monastic vows taken on ordination during the Buddha’s time (250 precepts for monks, 348 for nuns). Lay people took only the first five vows.
The bodhisattva precepts used in the Mahayana tradition emphasize conduct to benefit others, and are taken by both monastic and lay practitioners”.
as it says these are derived from the vinaya and the 16 precepts are the basis of zen ordination for monasics (seemingly political derivation or otherwise)- does this, in your opinion make zen monastics invalid?
The ten grave precepts of the zen ordination are deemed to be derived from the vinaya (as stated above) and therefore can be deemed to
be vinaya inclusive as are the tree higher trainings of the Mahayana.
The NKT ordination is similaly defined:-
“The purpose of the Vinaya (Tib. dulwa) is “to control [the mind]” through higher moral discipline, as this is the foundation for developing pure concentration (i.e., tranquil abiding), and in turn profound wisdom (i.e., superior seeing). While the first five Kadampa vows (“Throughout my life I will abandon killing, stealing, sexual activity, lying and taking intoxicants”) are common to all Vinaya lineages, the latter five (“I will practise contentment, reduce my desire for worldly pleasures, abandon engaging in meaningless activities, maintain the commitments of refuge, and practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration and wisdom”) are taken from the Mahayana Perfection of Wisdom Sutra and its commentaries such as Atisha’s Lamrim text Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, which references Arya Asanga’s Grounds of a Bodhisattva (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) listing the six ‘branches’ or necessary conditions for attaining tranquil abiding, including these five internal conditions:
1. little desire
2. contentment
3. no distracting activities
4. pure moral discipline
5. no distracting conceptions
Look familiar? These preparatory practices are methods of training the mind—methods of moral discipline. The very purpose of becoming ordained is to practice a moral discipline that would enable one to achieve tranquil abiding. With tranquil abiding, one can attain superior seeing. With these three higher trainings—moral discipline, concentration and wisdom—one will achieve liberation from samsara. In his text, Atisha says, “One who neglects the branches of tranquil abiding will never attain concentration, even if he meditates with great effort for a thousand years.”
Yet some legalists still reject the latter five Kadampa ordination vows simply because they do not appear verbatim in the Vinaya or Pratimoksha Sutras. For example, they would say that, even though it is more succinct, the vow “to practice contentment” just isn’t to be found in traditional ordination texts. I would say they can’t see the forest for the trees. For example, vow #31—to not get a new mat before six years are up—is obviously a particular instance of the more general principle to practice contentment. Buddha taught the necessity of following the meaning and not merely the words of the practice. Recognizing and appreciating the ‘spirit’ of the individual precepts of the Vinaya is how all the Kadampa ordination vows are to be understood and practiced.
Another mistake made by legalists is when they try to pigeonhole the 10 Kadampa vows into either the 5 vows of a layperson, the 8 vows of a renunciate (Tib. Rabjung), the 10 or 36 vows of a novice monk (Tib. Gestul), or the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk (Tib. Gelong). However, the vows of Kadampa ordination are to be regarded as a practical condensation of the essential meaning of each of these. As such, we should look to see how the 253 vows of a Gelong, for example, are subsumed under the more broadly encompassing 10 vows, rather than the other way around.
Regards and best wishes in your geshe training
Cheyenne
Further information on the history of zen ordination (by the 16 precepts)
Taking the Precepts,
Sewing Buddha’s Robe
by Taitaku Pat Phelan
According to Ch’an Master Sheng-yen, a common saying in Mahayana Buddhism is “Having vows to break is the bodhisattva path. Not having vows to break is a non-Buddhist path.” I have heard this expressed as “it is better to take the precepts and break them than not to take them at all.” Of course, the point isn’t to break the precepts but to receive and maintain them. In the time between our arousing the aspiration to receive the precepts and mature our practice, and the actualization of that vow, we can use the precepts to support and clarify our practice. Working with the precepts can be compared to a baby learning to walk. The baby takes a step and falls down, takes another couple of steps and loses his balance. Slowly, by trying over and over, the baby learns to maintain the walking motion longer until, eventually, he can not only walk, but run and dance.
Several people are sewing rakusus in preparation for receiving the precepts in the ceremony called Jukai. I would like to talk about the process of receiving the precepts. The Jukai Ceremony is also called the Bodhisattva Initiation or Lay Ordination. The word Jukai is Japanese, and it is written with two characters: the second character, kai, refers to the precepts, and the first character ju means both “to give” and “to receive.” Jukai is the ceremony of giving and receiving the precepts. In Zen we use the Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts which are given both in priest and lay ordination ceremonies. They are also given in the wedding and funeral ceremonies which, as it turns out, are also a kind of ordination or precepts ceremony.
I would like to talk about how we have come to use these sixteen precepts. The precepts have been developing over the past 2,500 years, since Shakyamuni Buddha’s time, as guidelines to help people who are practicing together to live in harmony. They are mostly intended to be practiced in relationship to others. You can’t do as much with them if you are living in isolation like a hermit, so the precepts are very much a sangha-oriented practice. The precepts vary from country to country and between different cultures as circumstances vary. In some Buddhist sects there are as many as 348 precepts (the Patimoksha Rules) some of which serve as guidelines for the many details of monastic living, such as, taking off your shoes before entering the zendo, and being sure your feet and clothes are clean. Fully ordained women are given about fifty more precepts than men. But when Shakyamuni Buddha began teaching, and others began joining him in practice, there weren’t any precepts. The precepts were created individually as situations arose that put monks and nuns in danger, or that were counterproductive to practice.
During the time Buddha was teaching, about 250 precepts developed called vinaya. The word vinaya means rules of the religious order, or rules of action to discipline the mind. On his deathbed, Buddha told Ananda, “After my Nirvana, if the sangha asks for the nullification of some articles of the petty vinaya, the Tathagata gives you permission to nullify them serially.” Ananda was Buddha’s first cousin and had been his attendant for many years. He was known for his clear and complete memory. Legend has it that he remembered all of Buddha’s sermons perfectly, and, after Buddha’s death, he repeated them until others also learned them. Sutras traditionally begin with the phrase, “Thus have I heard….” The “I” referred to is Ananda who is repeating the sermon he heard Buddha deliver. These teachings remained an oral tradition until they were finally written down as sutras about 200 years after they were delivered.
Three months after Buddha’s death or parinirvana, there was a meeting of elders called the First Council of the Order, and Ananda reported to the Council that Buddha had said that the petty vinaya could be disregarded. The members asked which of the vinaya the petty ones were, and Ananda replied that at the time Buddha told him this, he was lost in astonishment that some of the vinaya could be disregarded and forgot to ask.
Many discussions and arguments followed about which of the vinaya rules were great and which were petty. At this time, Mahakasyapa, the elder Arhat, who in Zen is considered to be Buddha’s successor, suggested that the vinaya were disciplinary rules to help monks preserve themselves from unwholesome actions and he suggested that none of them be nullified. This was the case for about 100 years until around 443 B.C.E. when a Second Council was held and there was a disagreement between two factions as to whether ten petty vinaya could be nullified. This disagreement led some time later to the two groups splitting up. Eventually, one group became predominant in northern India; they became the Mahayana group, which used Sanskrit as its textual language. The other group became predominant in southern India, used Pali for their written texts, and were called “Hinayana” [lesser vehicle] by the Mahayana [great vehicle] group. The southern school survives today and is referred to now by the more polite name of the Theravada [way of the elders] School.
Jumping ahead about thousand years, Buddhism was introduced into Japan in about the 6th century, and by the 8th century it was established enough to have large monasteries. Saicho, an important abbot of a large Tendai Buddhist monastery and head of the Tendai movement in Japan at that time, petitioned the Emperor in the 8th century asking for permission to ordain monks using only the Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts instead of the 227 Patimoksha Precepts that were ordinarily used. I can’t remember why he wanted the precepts reduced, but certainly it would be difficult to follow all of them in the culture and climate of Japan. Actually, some of the original precepts must have been modified in China prior to this. For example, the traditional precepts limit a monk’s possessions to something like three robes, one bowl and two needles. In Japan, where it is very hot and humid in the summer and cold and snowy in the winter (especially in the mountains), under robes were added to the traditional ordination robe or okesa.
Other Patimoksa precepts prohibited work, but Zen monks in China and Japan did work in the kitchen, on the grounds, and grew food in fields and gardens, which made their monasteries self sufficient to some extent and less dependent on donations from lay people and the government. This was a factor in the survival of Zen monasteries during the Buddhist persecution in China in about the 10th or 11th century. In Zen Buddhism, working not only was allowed for monks, but it was seen as another vehicle for practice and has come to be known as being characteristic of zen practice.
After petitioning for many years, Saicho died and the Emperor of Japan granted permission posthumously for monks to be ordained receiving sixteen precepts. Eventually the sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts came to be used by all, or nearly all, Japanese Buddhist sects in ordaining monks. Japan is the only Asian country where ordained Buddhist clerics receive only sixteen precepts. After Japanese ports were finally opened to foreign ships in about 1868, the Japanese government mounted a campaign to establish a state religion to help prevent foreign religions from entering the culture, and the indigenous Shinto religion was chosen over Buddhism. The authority of Buddhist monks at that time was undermined and eventfully Buddhist monks were allowed and even encouraged by the government to marry. This is why in Japan today, most Buddhist clerics tend to be priests living as householders taking care of temples where lay people practice rather than living in monasteries as celibate monks. This is some of the cultural history of the precepts we take.
One of the fundamental teachings in Buddhism is the law of cause of effect, or action and the result of action. The word karma means “volitional action” and it is enacted through our body, speech, and thought. The law of causation states that wholesome actions will sooner or later come to fruition as wholesome results or effects, and unwholesome actions will come to fruition as unwholesome results: basically, as you sow, so shall you reap. The effects of these actions may be experienced in the next instant, hours or years later, or in a future life. Our present situation is the result of our past actions, but, in each moment, the activity we choose is determining or contributing to the conditions of what we will experience in the future.
The Western idea of good and evil really doesn’t really apply here. Buddhism teaches that we act either out of insight into the truth of cause and effect (or the truth of the interconnectedness of all things) or we act out of ignorance to these truths. Once we realize the relationship between cause and effect, and the true interrelatedness of all things, we act out of insight or wisdom. From the perspective of Zen, we don’t need to try to change our behavior as much as we need to try to bring our attention to our actions and the effects they have on ourselves and others. When we really understand, or really realize the unwholesome effects of our unwholesome actions, we will stop doing them. So much of our effort with the precepts is in the realm of mindfulness.
Generally, mental activity carries the weakest karma-result; speech produces a stronger result; and physical actions have the strongest effects both on ourselves and on others. For example, we can think an unwholesome thought and drop it without it having much of an effect. But, if we make a habit of unwholesome thinking–thinking that is rooted in greed, hate, or delusion, which reinforces the idea of the self as a separate entity–then that activity is strengthened through repetition and becomes a kind of frame of reference for the rest of our activity. Our thoughts tend to be more subtle and elusive than our verbal and physical activity, and they happen a lot more quickly. Verbal and physical action is always preceded by a thought or mental impulse. In practice, a lot of emphasis is placed on becoming conscious of our mental activity–our thoughts and emotions, impulses and intentions, and the residual day dreams we slip into when we aren’t engaged with what we are doing. As we slow down and pay attention to the details, we begin to get a sense for how our intentions and impulses propel our verbal and physical activity.
Traditional Buddhist teaching describes three areas of practice: morality, meditative concentration and wisdom. These are usually seen as being cultivated in that order. Practicing morality, or right conduct, means maintaining the precepts by abandoning unwholesome activity and developing wholesome activity. This is considered preparation for meditation practice because unwholesome conduct produces agitated, restless states of mind, making it difficult for us to stop and be calm enough to sit still, whereas wholesome conduct supports concentration. The traditional view is that once our conduct is wholesome enough and we are calm enough, then we can meditate, which develops concentration. After we develop some level of concentration, then wisdom or insight will follow–insight into how Buddhist teaching or truth is manifested in our own experience. This systematic approach tends to be used in earlier Buddhism. In Zen we don’t separate these three areas of cultivation but work with them in an integrated way.
For example, the instructions we’re given for zazen don’t address the precepts directly because when we are sitting zazen, for the most part, we are already maintaining the precepts. When we sit silently, allowing the body to be still and the mind to settle, we are in alignment with the precepts. So practicing zazen is one way to practice with the precepts, and maintaining the precepts allows us to experience the clarity of our being when it is not being directed by our conditioning and habit energy.
The first step in working with the precepts is becoming aware of our physical, verbal, mental, and emotional activity, and what about it brings a sense of well-being or uneasiness. The essence of the precepts is non-harming, and to be able to sit still in the first place entails some level of non-harming. So practicing the precepts helps us become calm enough to be able to meditate, and meditation practice upholds the precepts, and meditation and the precepts together help us develop insight (maybe the insight that we need to meditate more!)
In this lineage, before we receive the precepts in an ordination ceremony, we first sew a rakusu, which is the small patched together piece of cloth that is worn around the neck. We treat the rakusu as Buddha’s robe. The rakusu comes to us from a tradition based on the way Shakyamuni Buddha made his robe. He gathered discarded rags from the streets and charnel grounds, washed them, dyed them a saffron color, and sewed them together to make his robe. The okesa, the larger ordination robe worn by priests, and the rakusu, the smaller version of it, come to us from this tradition. The pattern of the patches is based on the pattern of rice fields Buddha saw standing on a hill overlooking rice paddies.
To make a rakusu, we start with a large piece of dark fabric which we carefully measure and cut into smaller pieces, some of which are only about a square inch in size. Then we pin these pieces and sew them back together. In doing this, most of us quickly find out how frustrating it can be trying to keep the individual strips parallel to each other and the corners square, particularly on the smaller pieces.
One of the teachings in Zen is “Everything is mind.” I’ve never experienced this quite so vividly as when I was sewing my first rakusu. At some point I realized that what was there before me wasn’t just a needle and thread and some cloth, but my state of mind. My state of mind was there facing me. My effort, intention, and concentration, my impatience, frustration, and restlessness, my desire to just get it over with were right there before me. It was as if all the ups and downs and configurations of my mind were there looking back at me. So, when we sew a rakusu, not only do we get a rakusu made, but most of us get a very tangible experience of our state of mind. Then we wear our rakusu on our chest and everyone else can see our rakusu-sewing state of mind.
One of the instructions for sewing the rakusu is to say a refuge silently with each stitch. As I took a stitch I said, “I take refuge in Buddha”; another stitch, “I take refuge in Dharma”; another stitch, “I take refuge in Sangha.” This is repeated over and over with the sewing. Doing this brings the refuges to the breath, and the breath to the sewing. This way of sewing, sitting still, trying to bring your complete attention to each stitch, and chanting, brings forth a concentrated state. Sewing is itself a meditation practice which unifies body, breath, and mind. Through the sewing and chanting, we embody the refuges, we bring Buddha’s teaching into our bodies. I think this is the first initiation.
After completing the rakusu, it is given to the preceptor or the person ordaining us. During the ordination ceremony, we are given a new name. This name is written on the back of the rakusu which is given during the ceremony. So although we sew the rakusu, it is not ours until it is given to us. This is also true if you sew a second or third rakusu, or if someone sews a rakusu for you. In this lineage when you sew a rakusu, you don’t put your rakusu on and start wearing it right away, but give it to a teacher to give to you. This process recognizes our interconnection, the importance of having a teaching, a group and a teacher to practice with. We don’t go off by ourselves to get enlightened; we practice with all beings, for the benefit of all beings.
Regards
Cheyenne
reply to comment by Cheyenne 1 Dec 08 at 8:14 pm
Dear Cheyenne, I am sorry to disappoint you.
For me it makes no sense to discuss the vast Vinaya with someone who doesn’t know it, and who received no teachings, and no ordination within it, and is under the influence of a person, who was formally expelled from his monastery, trying with all means to justify his own system. Discussion with NKT followers about Vinaya appears to me like talking to a blind about the differences between different types of the colour blue, after the blind had been already confused by wrong explanations of a colour blind person, who perceives green as blue.
In Tibetan Buddhism the study of the Vinaya is strongly restricted only to those with full ordination. Vows can’t be refuted by debate, because they are based on Buddha’s unerroneous perception of cause and effect. The vows have to be understood as well in their historical context and the circumstances which led to their formulation by the Buddha. The study of the Vinaya takes usually four years. There are many reasons why this is so.
However, to help you to get at least an idea, some short remarks on how to keep the vows. In the Mula-sarvastavadin Vinaya the vows are divided into different classes. From among the 6 classes the first two, the defeat and suspension class, are the most serious. They should not be transgressed at all. Transgression of the defeat class ends the ordination. Then there are vows for one can ask the Buddha’s permission “for the benefit of Dharma and sentient beings”, e.g. storing food. Usually a gelong asks permission every morning for those vows one can ask permission. For those vows which could not be kept due to a lack of discipline or mindfulness the bimonthly Sojong with its ritual was set up by the Buddha to purify these faults. As the Buddha has said, it is rare to find a monk with perfectly pure ethic. Claims of NKT by keeping the vows, e.g. not to touch a woman (out of sexual desire), would include not even to be able to touch the own mother, is just an expression of NKT leadership’s or NKT member’s confusion.
My opinion is, what NKT explains is just a pot of contradictions. On top of that NKT claims to be the ‘pure tradition’ and the (sole) authentic heir of Je Tsongkhapa and Atisha, yet do not recognizes how much both masters emphasised monastic life and the Vinaya, and how far NKT has distanced themselves from them, emphasizing a superficial version of their traditions. It is even more funny to see that NKT, who can be portrayed as ‘traditionalists’, call those with a proper understanding of ordination ‘legalists’.
To claim now the existence of a “Kadampa ordination” or “Kadampa vows” is rather a case of serious deception. I think it is correct to say, that the NKT ordination with its five aspirations, and the active discouragement of receiving proper Gestul (Novice) or Gelong (full) ordination, is an invention of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The refutation of this invention as being authentic by properly ordained Buddhist monks and nuns has nothing to do with ‘legalists’ or ‘politics’, although the use of these terms may probably blur the own followers about the facts.
I fully support and share the view of the ASA as expressed in their statement:
Thank you for your kind wishes. (Please note, I have no Geshe training or Geshe study.)**
All the best for you as well. tp
* see: http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
** You may have taken this wrong information from the ‘NKT truth site’. Sadly, besides some rare exceptions, almost everything the NKT ‘truth’ site states about the people ‘Behind the lies’, including me, is just untrue or a spin of the facts.
Dear Tenzin,
Thank your for your reply. I have no intention to decry vinaya or your faith in keeping your vows purely.
Also I apologise if you are in fact not involved in the Geshe program.
Maybe it would be best for both sides of this debate to agree to differ and accept that, like in the Christian tradition, we can have different views on how to practice and ordain monastics etc., which may be in the spirit of the law or to the letter of the law as the case may be..
You view the strict letter of the law and we (NKT), like the Soto Zen tradition, interpret the law within a Mahayana construct.
I think one problem of interpretation from yourside (I may be wrong) is that the view is of the NKT as Tibetan Buddhism when it isn’t.
The NKT is a derivitive of, and separate from, Tibeten Buddhism & is not Gelugpa as in Tibetan tradition, but Western version of Gelugpa with no affiliation to Tibetan Gelugpa, except via lineage and source (Je Tsongkhapa).
Finally I would just like to counter your claim (which I understand) that -
“it must be emphasised that this is not a monastic ordination according to the teachings of Buddha”.
I would agree that is not according strictly to the letter of the teachings of Buddha Vinaya, but it is in accordance with Buddhas teachings of the interpretive vinaya and with Buddhas teachings of the Mahayana (like in soto zen).
I would agree, that strictly, the two ordinations Vinaya to the letter, and interpretive vinaya via the Mahayanna are not exactly the same.
But this is so in many religeous traditions and where similar problems and arguments also arise when we argue “I am right and you are wrong”.. we need to agree that we are different and respect our differences.
(It is like catholic priests arguing that anglican priests are not real priests – two different traditions, same roots).
I would hope that ‘we’ all take refuge in the three jewels and are are therefore all, by definition, Buddhist.
In the end it dosn’t matter what is true or not true, for an individual, what matters is that which is most beneficial to believe, in order to attain enlighteenment for the benefit of all.
The only truth in samsara is emptiness. All conventional truths are false, in that they appear to be inherently existants.
This applies to all dharmas, all dharmas are empty. but all dharmas function. If dharmas function to take us out of samsara then they are beneficial to beleive.
What benificial dharmas we beleive in, arise in dependence upon our karma.
We should respect and accept the difference in our karma.
Once more best regards and I genuinely wish you well.
Cheyenne
Dear Cheyenne, thank you for your reply and all your effort. I will look to find time to read it and also the older long comment you have sent, which I haven’t recognised until now, and just approved (without reading it).
best wishes and all the best :-)
Dear Tenzin,
The FPMT Masters Program in Buddhist Studies of Sutra and Tantra, located at Lama Tzong Khapa Institute, Pomaia, Italy, is based on the traditional geshe studies program of Tibetan Gelug monastic universities. This residential study program is taught in Tibetan and translated into English and Italian for lay and ordained students from all over the world. It is based on the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni as commented and realized by the scholars and meditators of India and Tibet, including Arya Nagarjuna, Acharya Chandrakirti, and Lama Tsongkhapa. Not only does this program offer an in-depth study of such important texts as Abhisamayalamkara by Maitreya, Madhyamakavatara by Chandrakirti, and Abhidharmakosha by Vasubandhu, it also offers an extremely rare opportunity to receive extensive teachings on tantra in the Buddhist tradition, in particular the highest yoga tantra of Guhyasamaja.
Who is spinning things? This is the program you are enrolled in. If you complete it you will be a Geshe or Master depending on the label you wish to apply.
Your words:
“In January 2008 I’ve started to study in Italy the great texts which are studied in the Tibetan monasteries. The study will last for six years, our teacher is Lharampa Geshe Tenzin Tenphel.”
Lharampa Geshe Tenzin Tenphel is the teacher of the FPMT program described above.
If you insist that you are not receiving or “have no Geshe training or Geshe study” then it is clear you show contempt for the study program and your kind teacher.
Dear Ron,
thank you for your comment. There is no spinning. Please try to read what you already quoted and be precise with your judgement, then what appears to you as a spinning will be resolved.
The program is based on 3 of 5 major texts of the classical Geshe study. It does neither offer a Geshe degree nor a “master” – it is just called “master program” because the texts are quite difficult, maybe to hard for beginners. At the end – if you fulfilled all the requirements – you get a paper about this but this does not qualify you to call yourself a master or a Geshe.
To claim a six year study program based on 3 of 5 major study texts of the Geshe study, which excludes also texts like Tarig, Dura, Lorig, Salam, debate etc. would be a Geshe study is just incorrect.
Compared with what the monks study in the Gelug monasteries for receiving a Geshe degree, minimum 15 years of extreme hard studies, our study is just not qualified to be labelled to be a Geshe study, and nobody ever claimed that it would, that’s why it states “b a s e d on the traditional geshe studies”.
To think we do a Geshe study would rather be a case of confusion, like a fox competing with a lion.
Thank you for your comment and the opportunity to clarify this. Please feel free to ask more.
Best Wishes, t
Seriously wish all of you lot,,,,would just shut up.Both sides……..!
comment TP
What’s your problem, Jaco?
reply to cheyenne December 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Dear cheyenne,
I didn’t reply to this post, because at that time I was a bit tired from this discussion, and I’ve had made my points already in the former comments. However, as I can see on my dashboard this post (and probably the comments too) are still often read, so it may be good to reply.
Your last post suggests mainly to accept the NKT way of ordination as being valid and to be “tolerant” that NKT ordination would be acceptable as being fully qualified. But tolerance does not include to accept a wrong view to be a right view. The discrimination between right views and wrong views are a main topic in Buddhism, because the path to liberation is based on Right View. The path to liberation or Buddhahood is not based on tolerating wrong views as being right views, though one can accept (tolerate) of course that wrong views exist, and also that wrong views are claimed to be right views.
Wrong views and right views exist conventionally, and the Buddha has taught about them, so wrong views and right views can be discriminated and determined as what they are.
As long as NKT claims to be the heir of Je Tsongkhapa’s traditon (and even to be the ‘only’ ‘pure’ one – what ever this means) they must be able to tolerate that those knowing the facts disagree with them. The contradictions and therefore the need to justify themselves lie on the side of NKT. On the one hand NKT want to be perceived as being a valid ‘pure’ ‘tradition’ which is authentic, on the other hand they neglect and bend what the masters (Buddhha Shakyamuni, Atisha, Je Tsongkhapa) of the tradition really have taught about the practice and importance of the Vinaya and monasticism and bend the teachings as it suits the mind of the NKT leadership, who is not interested in monasticism and a proper training for their monks and nuns according to the Vinaya but rather that the ordained ones ‘build an NKT empire on earth’. The NKT ordainees are rather (ab)used to fulfil KG’s vision of NKT to be a worldwide established ‘tradition’ studying devotedly his Dharma books and following only ‘one teacher, his tradition and his dharma protector’ – of course this vision derives from the ‘pure motivation’ ‘to help all sentient beings’.
I think you try to escape the consequences of our discussion on the validity of NKT’s ordination by asking just to accept the differences NKT made on their own – or better Kelsang Gyatso made on his own. But tolerance does not mean to accept an invalid point of view as being valid.
However, I can understand your wish that others should be tolerant with the NKT.
You say:
“In the end it dosn’t matter what is true or not true, for an individual, what matters is that which is most beneficial to believe, in order to attain enlighteenment for the benefit of all.”
My reply:
You invite to give up reasoning, no matter what is correct or wrong, as long as it will lead to enlightenment it is ok. But how do you know that what you believe in is “beneficial to believe, in order to attain enlighteenment for the benefit of all.”??? Maybe its not beneficial at all and it won’t lead you to enlightenment….
A wrong or incorrect belief may appear to be beneficial from a short term perspective but a wrong belief can lead you far away from enlightenment, while a correct belief (or view) may appear impractical from a short term perspective but can lead you closer to enlightenment….
The Buddha and the Buddhist teachings stress to investigate if teachings/believes or views are correct or incorrect and then to follow the correct teachings or the correct view. You can see that Right View is the first of the eight branches of the The Noble Eightfold Path, and that the path as well as the training in wisdom is based on getting rid of wrong views (or corrupt wisdom) which are discordant with reality and to see reality as it is, to get the right view on reality.
In Buddhism belief (or faith) should be based on reasoning and be backed up by authentic Buddhist scriptures, and it should refer to really existing qualities, otherwise what one calls ‘belief’ may be easily mislead oneself and others. e.g. it maybe helpful to believe that the sacrifice of an aggressive animal to the Buddha would help the animal to be reborn in a higher realm and a positive deed, which brings you closer to enlightenment, hence you should sacrifice these aggressive animals for the benefit of the animal and all sentient beings. But is this a valid Dharma teaching or a pseudo-Dharma?
you say:
“The only truth in samsara is emptiness. All conventional truths are false, in that they appear to be inherently existants.
This applies to all dharmas, all dharmas are empty. but all dharmas function. If dharmas function to take us out of samsara then they are beneficial to beleive.”
my reply:
OK how can NKT proof that their version of ordination is valid and leads out of Samsara? Where are the examples?
Actually NKT have proofed the complete opposite, NKT leads deeper into Samsara, because mainly due to the absence of the Vinaya and Pratimoksha teachings as well as properly ordained and long-term experienced fully ordained monks and nuns – the mere absence of the Buddhist order and the teachings for them – many Resident Teachers had sexual relationships with nuns and lay female and not even the most gifted 2 successors of Kelsang Gyatso were able to keep their vow of celibacy but had performed a long term sexual misconduct and sexual abuse covered even by Kelsang Gyatso himself.
So I wonder how these NKT-”dharmas function to take us out of samsara” and how “they are beneficial to beleive.”
you say:
“What benificial dharmas we beleive in, arise in dependence upon our karma.
We should respect and accept the difference in our karma.”
my reply:
In dependence on your karma a demon can appear in the guise of a saffron robed monk or even a Buddha, this is taught by Buddha Maitreya in the Abhisamayalamkara. Likewise a misleading teacher can appear to be a valid teacher and vice versa, accepting Karma does not include to follow blindly the situations which our karma created but to face and investigate the situation unbiased, with deep understanding, and to follow what is constructive and to avoid what is destructive by applying thoroughly and open analysis.
So in dependence of negative Karma and wrong views it can appear to be ‘beneficial’ to lie or to steal, but is it really beneficial to lie and to steal? Likewise, in dependence of negative Karma and wrong views it can appear to be ‘beneficial’ to change the Vinaya and to offer a superficial version of it, but is it really beneficial to do that?
Your sentence:
“What benificial dharmas we beleive in, arise in dependence upon our karma.”, I think, is actually quite a mess. How do you know that the Dharma you belief in is a “benificial dharma”, maybe its a pseudo-Dharma, a wrong teaching which just appear to be beneficial, because it is appealing to the mind. And maybe this appealing appearance is not based on good karma but inner delusions and is projected by negative Karma.
To find out what is correct and wrong, this needs unbiased investigation and a lot of knowledge, hence we come back to the point, that you have not studied the Vinaya and that those who have do not accept the NKT point of view.
Take Care, TP
some thoughts which came to my mind after having posted the previous post…
when we speak of “demon” this mainly refers to something which functions to turn away from enlightenment, and this force can be internal or external. a “good demon” is a clever demon, he is not easy to be recognized as what he is, and he has sound arguments but teaches a counterfeit Dharma.
the example of an outer “demon” is Devadatta who was very knowledgeable in the Dharma and established his own order and his own rules and split the order of the Buddha. at one point when one of the disciples of the Buddha who had clairvoyance approached the Buddha and told him about the negative thoughts in Devadatta’s mind, the Buddha replied, ‘no need to take action now, Devadatta will show his real nature by his own actions’. However, later when Devadatta actual split the order the Buddha took actions.
another problem in NKT is not only the absence of the Vinaya, the lack of understanding of the Vinaya and the absence of the monastic rituals and livelihood – which leads to a rather very worldly monk’s and nun’s live – but also the happily ignoring of basic understanding of the Vinaya, e.g. “not to be in solitude with a woman’. many NKT ordained Resident Teachers have female assistants, the monastics and lay members are quite mixed and this interferes with a proper life as a monk or nun, and on top of that the ordained are less supported but rather exploited to work hard for the organisation “to accumulate merit” or to “serve the Guru”.
also Kelsang Gyatso does not give a proper example, since he has himself female assistants and he himself ignores the rules. e.g. while I had been a member of NKT at the times during the festivals on the level where he used to live there were certain rooms and there lived only nuns! My own Resident Teacher, the NKT nun Dechen (btw a quite attractive woman), was asked to live also in one of these rooms near to Kelsang Gyatso. When she was still a very devoted disciple of Kelsang Gyatso she once acknowledged to me during the NKT festival, that also she has sometimes problems to develop faith and she said: “Also for me it is difficult sometimes to develop faith, what would you do if you wake up in the morning and your spiritual guide sits on your bed and you are still in your pyjama?”
that Kelsang Gyatso ignored the long term sexual abuses of his own successors is no good behaviour either. he complained and took actions only after the abuses have been made public via E-Sangha. Only after this and after Gen Samden send a quite strange email to his students Kelsang Gyatso replied and wrote about his last successor, Gen Samden, in an email:
However, these are not the actions of a master, because as the Buddha said himself neither does he turn a blind eye on misbehaviour of his disciples nor does he expect that his disciples turn a blind eye on his behaviour, and KG turned a blind eye on his successors and only acted when it was made public (Steve W.) or threatened to made public (Neil E.).
Also, if a student fails the master should do all he can do to help him or her to purify the situation and not to abandon him or her, claiming wrongly “I have no connection with you.”, of course he has a connection with Gen Samden (Steve W.)!
Another comment with respect to NKT ordination 25 May 2009
There seems to be a lot of confusion among the NKT ordained ones as well as among long-term NKT resident teachers, when actual a vow is broken and the discipline is lost or a root vow is destroyed and one is no longer a monk or nun respectively. Besides that NKT monks and NKT nuns are mere Rabjungs* as far as I’ve experienced and as far as I remember and observed, due to the lack of the Vinaya and the Pratimoskha and the lack of proper and detailed teachings for the NKT monks and NKT nuns about the discipline they should observe, the NKT ordained ones do just not know what a vow includes, what minor breaches, major breaches and root defeats are, when and how they are purified, can’t be purified, how and when they should be confessed and what the consequences of infractions or breaches are.
This thoroughly lack of knowledge can lead towards feeling confused, disorientated, and despaired (e.g. I remember one NKT monk who thought after he had drunk a beer he has lost his vows); and it can give a lot of space for the mind to speculate on the vows and to bend them as it may be suited for oneself. Once this mental pattern of ‘bending rules’ is established, one will in an ongoing process justify the bending by using fake reasoning, and finally – mixed with other questionable NKT teachings like ‘if you visualize yourself as Vajrayogini and keep divine pride, then even when you commit faults these will lead you to Buddhahood’ – this can lead to the result as it had been shown by Lodrö, Samden, Thubten, Tharpa and many many others – so many Resident Teachers or NKT teachers finally got totally corrupted, and people wonder how this could have happened.
My observation and understanding is, that this ‘bending of the rules’ is further supported by the unique and radical NKT approach to the Guru, which teaches unique, dangerous and very advanced practices of highly realized practitioners (Naropa) towards their highly realized Gurus (Tilopa) for simple and inexperienced beginners, e.g. “Are you ready to jump off a cliff for your Guru, when he asks you?”
Another example of misunderstanding about rules for ordained ones within NKT which came to my attention concerns “to abandon killing” – one of the four root vows of a monk or nun. The misunderstanding was, that the person was thinking that the vow is also broken by killing an animal. Though killing an insect or an elephant is still negative and a transgression, only by killing a human being the vow or discipline is completely broken and one is no longer a monk or nun any more. In a commentary Geshe Tenzin Thenpel explained this in the following manner:
Not to kill a human being also includes not to kill by speech by e.g. advising others to kill themselves or to give them medicine to kill themselves or to use spells, mantras etc to kill them. It also includes not to bring others intentionally near to a trap like a cliff, poisonous snake etc. which will lead towards that they loose their human life.
However, the vow also includes not to kill any living being or to use water in which there are animals or to burn wood which contains life. There are four branches of the vow to abandon killing.
Details can be found in
Stanzas for a Novice Monk & Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya which includes two works on the Vinaya – Lama Mipham’s commentary to Nagarjuna`s Stanzas and Lama Tsong Khapa’s Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya.
There are similar subtleties, divisions and detailed explanations with respect to all the other vows which Kelsang Gyatso just does not teach to his followers. No wonder that confusion prevails among NKT ordained ones, and that they lack any shame to attack the Sangha / the monastic order.
* Rabjungs are ‘intermediate ordained ones’ who are no members of the Buddhist order and who can not commit an actual defeat. An actual defeat is a complete loss of one of the four root vows. However, Rabjungs and Novices commit a ‘misdeed similar to a defeat’ which makes the negativity involved not that heavy as for a fully ordained one. However, of course their status as monk or nun is lost when they committed a ‘misdeed similar to a defeat’, and if they didn’t had the intention to conceal the fault, the misdeed can be purified if it is openly confessed to the Sangha. All the details and distinctions are explained in the Vinaya.