Buddhism, Featured NKT, New Kadampa Tradition

by tenpelJuly 27, 20088:37 pm

Are NKT monks and nuns authentic?

According to the Australian Sangha Association “for NKT members to represent themselves to the public as authentic Buddhist monks and nuns is wrong and misleading.”

According to the New Kadampa Tradition “Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society. The NKT is following this advice from Buddha.”

Is the NKT claim correct?

Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society.

This claim is wrong, its an invention, and it doesn’t make sense. The Buddha never said this. The NKT can’t provide any valid source for such a claim. This claims is illogical because if it were true that “Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society”, it follows NKT monks and nuns should go shopping to increase the income of their country by being good consumers, they should enjoy relationships, have sex, found families, watch TV, enjoy in pleasure, serve the army, go for work to earn money, and from time to time they should go for wars against the country’s enemies, because this “is most acceptable for society”. But the monk’s and nun’s life is no householder life and it is distinct different from living in the society.

The Change of Vinaya Rules

The Buddha allowed the Assembly of the Sangha to change minor rules. However, by now no agreement could be found in the monastic Sangha what rules could be considered to be ‘minor rules’. That’s why the rules haven’t been changed in the three existing Vinaya lineages (Theravada, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dhammaguptika). (see also History of the Vinaya Lineages and Sects and Sectarianism – The Origins of Buddhist Schools)

The claim of NKT, “NKT monks and nuns are authentic”, is incorrect in two ways:

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, an expelled Bhikshu from Sera Mey, is not the Assembly of the Sangha who can change the Vinaya rules. “One bhikkhu cannot effect any changes since Vinaya-decisions are arrived at after the consultation of a Sangha” (see The Buddhist Monk’s Discipline) and “However, when the monks want to amend even certain minor precepts, they would have to do it with the sanction of a recognized Sangha Council. Individual monks are not at liberty to change any Vinaya rules according to their whims and fancies. Such a Council of Sangha members can also impose certain sanction against monks who have committed serious violations of the disciplinary code and whose behavior discredits the Sangha. The Buddha instituted the Council to help monks to prevent evil deeds and avoid temptation in a worldly life. The rules were guidelines rather than inviolable laws handed down by some divine authority.” (see What is Vinaya?)
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has not changed ‘minor rules’. In fact Geshe Kelsang has removed the complete lineage of novice ordination and full ordination, including the three monastic activities, fortnightly Sojong (this can only be performed with at least four Bhikshus), the Rain Retreat, and the End of Rain Retreat. By this there is no Buddhist order active in NKT; the complete Vinaya is inactive. Without the complete Vinaya and the presence of the Four Assemblies the transmission of the Dharma is incomplete (see The Four Assemblies and the Foundation of the Order of Nuns). This is also clear from the Lam Rim teachings, because a Central Buddhist Country is only a country where all Four Assemblies are present, the order of monks and nuns together with laymen and laywomen. Because the monastic order and the proscribed rituals can only function with fully ordained ones, the presence of fully ordained persons is of vital importance for the existence and continuation of the monastic order. The presence of fully ordained monks and nuns is also of vital importance for the continuation of the Dharma, as the Buddha said himself in the Vinaya Sutra “As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides, the Lamp of Dharma shall abide.” Due to these reasons His Holiness the Dalai Lama and many Buddhist monks and nuns are eager to revive the Bhikshuni order (the order of fully ordained nuns) in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

The Buddha

There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: ‘In the Blessed One’s presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One’s presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas and tally them against the Vinaya.

If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it’ and you should reject it. But if… they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.’ (see also ATI)

Although most quotes above are from the Theravada Vinaya, the Indo-Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage is not very different from it. The views regarding the change of rules and the importance of the Vinaya, are the same. Until now not much of the commentary literature of the Indo-Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya has been translated into English, therefore the reader who seeks clarity and can’t read Tibetan may use these Theravada Vinaya explanations in English.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s views on ordination contradict the Mahayana and Je Tsongkhapa^[1]

Geshe Kelsang states in his ordination talk 1999:

Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which belongs to the Hinayana tradition. Personally I find this strange. We are Mahayana Buddhists so why are we following the Vinaya – the Pratimoksha vows – of the Hinayana tradition?

Although, sadly, the commentary by Geshe Kelsang includes a lot of more inaccuracies and misleading claims, for the sake of simplicity I take just this claim to show how it directly contradicts the Mahayana (the Bodhisattva vows) and Je Tsongkhapa’s own explanation whose tradition Geshe Kelsang claims to hold ‘purely’.

Je Tsongkhapa explains the Bodhisattva vow not to “Reject the Hearers [Hinayana] vehicle” based on Asanga’s Bodhisattvabhumi (in inverted commas) in the following way:

Rejecting the hearers vehicle

“To hold oneself, and espouse to others the view that ‘A bodhisattva does not listen to doctrine that is associated with the vehicle of the hearers; he should not guard the words and the sense of it, nor should he train himself sustainedly in it. There is no need to do these things’ – is a defiled fault.”

To hold the opinion that it is necessary for someone of the lesser vehicle to listen etc. to the hearers’ vehicle, but it is not necessary for the bodhisattva, does not constitute a fundamental rejection of the vehicle of the hearers. It looms especially large, however, as the seminal transgression of causing others to reject the pratimoksa.

“The reason that this results in transgression is that if the bodhisattva need apply himself even to tirthika treatises, what need to mention the exalted word of the Buddha?”

To maintain that those of little familiarity with doctrine, so long as they belong to the Greater Vehicle, need not train themselves in pratimoksa, is a great pitfall that accumulates obstacles whose karmic maturation is a paucity of doctrine. This precept is the best guideline for avoiding it.^[2]

The Bodhisattva vow “Not training for the sake of others’ faith.” is explained by Asanga (in inverted commas) and commented by Je Tsongkhapa in the following manner:

Not training for the sake of others’ faith

“The bodhisattva trains himself as do the hearers [Hinayana] – not refusing to conform by distinguishing himself from them – according to what has been legislated by the Lord as trainings in the Pratimoksa, the source work, and in other vinaya texts such as the Vibhanga that are commentaries to it, to be reprehensible by precept (which means, those [rules] not reprehensible by nature), in order to guard the thought of others.” He renounces whatever the hearers renounce.

“In order that those previously without faith may have faith, and those previously faithful may develop it further,” there are precepts for not drinking alcohol, abstinence from eating at the wrong time and so forth, as well as [not] digging the soil, making a fire, etc. You must train yourself in these as do the hearers, for if you fail to do so, not only does a fault develop contradicting the pratimoksa – a misdeed also develops contradicting the bodhisattva vow.

“The reason for this is that the hearers, intent as they are upon their own welfare, train themselves in trainings that guard the minds of others. How much more so must the bodhisattvas, intent as they are upon the welfare of others!”^[3]

The explanation of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso does not only contradict the Mahayana it also contradicts the Vinaya and Pratimoksha (as explained by the Buddha and Je Tsongkhapa), and it contradicts the approach of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa who both strongly emphasized the Vinaya and the three set of vows (Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana) and showed how they should be practised together and that there is no contradiction between these three set of vows.

The Lineages of Buddhist monks and Nuns and the Lineages of Buddhist Ordination^[4]

Nowadays there are three existing lineages of ordination:

the Theravada lineage: mainly in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. They follow the Theravadin Vinaya, which has 227 rules for the bhikkhus (male monastics) and 311 for the bhikkhunis (female monastics).
the Dharmagupta lineage: mainly in China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, which has 250 rules for the bhikkhus and 348 rules for the bhikkhunis. They follow the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.
the Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage: mainly in Tibet and Mongolia, which has 253 rules for the bhikshus and 364 rules for bhikshunis. They follow the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is that of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and his teachers. The lineage is (roughly listed) from Buddha Shakyamuni -> Shariputra -> Rahula (Buddha’s son) -> Nagarjuna -> Bhavaviveka -> Shrigupta -> Jnanagarbha -> Shantarakshita (who brought it to Tibet) -> Je Tsongkhapa -> to the present Vinaya holders. (Also Sakya Pandita was ordained in that lineage.)

There is nothing existent like a “Kadampa ordination according to Geshe Potowa” or a “Kadampa ordination derived from the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra“. Who claims this is incorrect and is deceiving people. Arya Nagarjuna explained 36 vows for a Buddhist novice monk or novice nun and 253 vows for a fully ordained monk and 364 vows for a fully ordained nun according to the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.

Downloads^[5]

Prātimokşa Sūtra of the Mūlasarvāstivādins:

Introduction to the Pratimoksha Sutra – Geshe Tekchok: Monastic Rites, London 1985
Mahāmahopādyāya Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana: So-sor-thar-pa : The Tibetan version of the Prātimokşa Sūtra of the Mūlasarvāstivādins
The Bhikshuni Pratimoksha Sutra of the Mulasarvastivadin School
Je Tsongkhapa: The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean
Prātimokşa Sūtra from the Gelong Sojong text of Sera Je monastery (bimonthly ritual of confession proscribed by the Buddha for Buddhist monks and nuns)
The Sutra on Being Endowed with Morality: Sila Samyukta Sutra

For those seeking authentic explanations about the Indo-Tibetan Mulasarvastivada Vinaya lineage, they may read these public available commentaries:

Essence of the Vinaya Ocean And The Namse Dengma Getsul Training by Lama Tsong Khapa; translated by Geshe Graham Woodhouse; ISBN: 8190236067^[6]
Direct Instructions from Shakyamuni Buddha – A Gelong’s Training in Brief by H.H. the XIVth Dalai Lama; translated by Geshe Graham Woodhouse; ISBN: 8190236075^[6]
Stanzas for a Novice Monk (Nagarjuna) & Essenz of the Ocean of Vinaya (Lama Tsongkhapa), Commentary by Lama Mipham Rinpoche, ISBN : 8186470158
Geshe Jampa Thegchok: Monastic Rites, Wisdom Books, ISBN : 0861712374
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye: Buddhist Ethics (Treasury of Knowledge), ISBN cloth: 155939191X
The Complete Works of Atisha, translated by Sherburne, Commentary on the Lamp of the Path by Atisha, Chapter III: The Monastic Life, ISBN: 81-7742-022-4 (The chapter is based on the Mahasamghika Vinaya, but points out clearly Atisha’s position regarding monasticism.)

For more about monasticism see

Preparing for Ordination: Reflections for Westerners Considering Monastic Ordination in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition – edited by Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron
Ordination: Caught Between Two Cultures by Ven. Losang Monlam
A Practical Approach to Vinaya by Bhikshuni Jampa Tsedroen
Whatever Happened to the Monastic Sangha? by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
The Challenge of the Future – How Will the Sangha Fare in North American Buddhism? by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
On the role of the Buddhist Sangha in today’s society by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

^[1] This paragraph was added February 8, 2009.

^[2] Asanga’s Chapter on Ethics With the Commentary of Tsong-Kha-Pa: The Basic Path to Awakening, the Complete Bodhisattva, page 228, Edwin Mellen Press:1986, translated by Mark Tatz

^[3] Asanga’s Chapter on Ethics With the Commentary of Tsong-Kha-Pa: The Basic Path to Awakening, the Complete Bodhisattva, page 208, Edwin Mellen Press:1986, translated by Mark Tatz

^[4] This paragraph was added September 27, 2008.

^[5] This paragraph was added April 01, 2009.

^[6] This book was added October 17, 2009.

Last edited by tenpel on March 01, 2017
(The DBO link was added.)

48Comments

Add yours

1

BigBan on August 17, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Reply

Oh, Thanks! Really funny. Big ups!
2

Tenzin Peljor on October 15, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Reply

Additional Comment to clarify some claims of NKT on Ordination
last edited Oct 18, 2009

To clarify at least some of the many unique claims made by Kelsang Gyatso in his Ordination Talk* and to clarify and correct some points with respect to NKT ordination made on the ‘Truth’-site of NKT here an annotation and correction to some key claims they made.

1. Geshe Potowa and Renunciation
It is said in the Gelug school that the a person who has Pratimoskha vows in his or her mind (there are eight types of Pratimoskha vows, see Je Tsongkhapa’s The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean) upon having realized uncontrived renunciation, these Pratimoskha vows become actual Pratimoksha vows.

Because the Gelong Geshe Potowa had developed uncontrived renunciation only due to the influence of his lay teacher Dromtönpa, he referred to him as his ‘abbot’ in the figurative sense, just for the sake to underline a point that was important for himself: that only due to the blessings of Dromtönpa and his teachings he was able to realize uncontrived renunciation, and that before he realized uncontrived renunciation he had only a similitude of the real meaning of ordination in his mental continuum. However, of course he had the Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows already in his mental continuum, which became manifest when he received formal ordination by the Sangha according to the Pratimoskha/Vinaya. These Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows in the mental continuum of Geshe Potowa which he received when he was ordained by the Sangha formed the very basis of his actual state of being an ordained person, a Buddhist monk in the lineage of Buddha Shakyamuni, and only these Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows in the mind of Geshe Potowa could become actual Gelong’s Pratimoksha vows when he realized uncontrived renunciation due to Dromtönpa’s influence.

If one understands this clearly it becomes obvious that there is neither a ‘Kadampa Ordination according to Geshe Potowa’ nor an ‘ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa’. What Geshe Potowa said is just a skilful teaching underlining a point which he felt important to stress.

The type of ‘transforming’-ordination Keslang Gyatso explains is not taught by Geshe Potowa nor in the Vinaya or Perfectiion of Wisdom Sutras, his claims or explanations are very uncommon views based on Kelsang Gyatso’s own interpretations.

If one investigates the unique claims made in the ordination talk it appears that this talk is quite of an impressive intellectual stunt or a distortion of the facts. The reason why this ‘stunt’ has been undertaken could be, that for full ordination Kelsang Gyatso needs at least five fully ordained monks (who are fully ordained for at least ten years) which do not exist in NKT. However, about the motivation can be speculated a lot, but the facts are very clear: there is no Kadampa ordination nor an ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa.

2. Utter non-sense offered by the NKT
It is amazing to see how far Kelsang Gyatso and NKT go to justify the NKT ‘ordination’. NKT followers who have usually no understanding of non-NKT teachings may think the NKT unique tenets (or distortions) on ordination are correct.

To short a lengthy discussion the main points can be summarized as:
– as said already, there is just no ordination ‘according to Geshe Potowa’, ‘ordination as interpreted by Geshe Potowa’ or any other Kadampa Geshe existent which NKT could follow; an “ordination interpreted by Geshe Potowa (1031-1106)” is a totally non-existent like the horns of a rabbit or the fur of a tortoise; what is existent is a statement by Geshe Potowa which is meant in a figurative sense and has not to be taken literally
– all ordained masters of the Kadampa sect were ordained persons according to the Mulasarvastavada lineage where Getsul/Gestul-ma (male and female novices) hold 36 vows and a Gelong (fully ordained monk) holds 253 vows. only with the presence of the latter and the Vinaya an order and ordination can function. the reason why the Vinaya texts and their commentaries start with ‘Homage to the Omniscient One’ is because the rules in the Pratimoksha are based on Buddha’s direct perception of the law of Karma (cause and effect), and the rules cannot be changed or abandoned arbitrary by 1 person.
– the claim of NKT would hold the ‘essential meaning’ of ordination is of the same taste as many other of NKT’s unique tenets or PR-stunts. NKT do not teach, hold and transmit the Vinaya but claim to have its ‘essential meaning’; NKT do not teach, hold and transmit the works of Je Tsongkhapa but claim to have their ‘essential meaning’; NKT offers only a selection of texts and a rather superficial understanding of Tibetan Buddhism written by one author but claims to be ‘complete’ and to offer the ‘entire Buddhist path to enlightenment’ [in 20 books] – maybe the books and NKT are a ‘complete selection’ 😉
– the NKT ordination is – from my point of view and knowledge – not invalid, however, the ordainees are no members of the Buddhist monastic order as established by the Buddha and laid down in the Vinaya; NKT ordainees, are mere Rabjungs, neither lay nor ordained persons but in an ‘intermediate state’ between both of them (see ‘Monastic Rites’ by Geshe Jampa Tegchok); hence NKT ‘monks and nuns’ can neither constitute nor represent the monastic Buddhist order, since only Gestul/Getsul-mas and Gelong/Gelongmas are members of the order, and from them only the latter are full members of the order.
– it is incorrect to claim: “a monk or a nun becomes ‘fully ordained’ (Gelong or Bhikshu (monk), Gelongma or Bhikshuni (nun)) by holding the ten vows of [NKT] ordination and having developed the realization of renunciation” because if there are no Gelong or Gelongma vows given during ordination, there won’t be a basis that they can become actual Gelong or Gelongma Pratimoskha vows. If the claim of NKT were be true, it follows 1. there would exist Gelongmas in the Tibetan tradition because there are female persons who have attained uncontrived renunciation and would no according to NKT tenets be fully ordained nuns, because their vows transformed into actual Gelongma vows, but NKT refutes that Gelongmas in the Tibetan Tradition exist; 2. Dromtönpa, the famous lay follower and heir of Atisha who realized uncontrived renunciation and who had received the lay Pratimoskha vows (which are quite the same as NKT’s first five of ten vows), would have become a Gelong when he realized uncontrived renunciation. If this would be true then it is wrong to claim Dromtönpa would have been a lay person, because he were in actual a Gelong; 3. the Pratimoksha vows of every lay person upon attaining uncontrived renunciation would become Gelong or Gelongma vows and he can not have sexual intercourse with his wife any more and would have to abandon his householder’s life.
– what can be said is that KG seems to be very convinced that his “condensations” and “essence-iations” of complex and profound Buddhist topics would not water down Buddhism and he may have a deep confidence to be able to summarize or reduce without failure 2500 years of Buddhism on his own, including all the Sutras of the Buddha, the Kangyur and Tangyur, the treatises of the Indian pandits, the works of the Tibetan Kadampa masters, the Vinaya masters and the 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa into about 20 books and 10 rules for ‘ordained persons’. For him just one page of a Sutra of the Buddha, three pages of Je Tsongkhapa’s 18 volumes and about five pages of the works of the Kadampa masters together with his 20 books seem to be sufficient to hold both traditions’ legacy ‘purely’, while at the same time he strongly believes – and instructs his followers – that the Gelug school would be ‘quite degenerated’…

* a rather detailed comment was made on E-Sangha in the New Kadampa Tradition thread pointing out e.g. the wrong claim that the rules of NKT ordination would derive from the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. The stance of the ASA on NKT ordination is correct: http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
3

newkadampatruth on October 19, 2009 at 9:23 am
Reply

Dear Tenzin,

I don’t really understand why you are trying to compare Kadampa ordination (Mahayana) and the ordination practice of the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition (Hinayana) since they come from different sources.

It seems to me that you are concerned with the words rather than the meaning. What is it that makes someone a Gelong or Gelongma rather than a novice? It’s their deep and spontaneous experience of renunciation and the three higher trainings surely? What would it be – holding hundreds of vows that have no relevance in the modern world and that they don’t have a hope in hell of keeping? The vows aren’t ‘magic’ and neither is the number of vows. The purpose of the vows is to support and protect the practice of renunciation and the three higher trainings so that they become deeper and deeper until liberation is achieved. You have to understand how this works, and then it’s possible to re-invent the ordination to be more applicable to this time and culture.

To focus on the ‘rules’ or words rather than the meaning is a sign of the degeneration of Buddhadharma in this world. In my view, the Kadampa ordination puts the meaning back into being ordained by putting contentment, renunciation and the three higher trainings back at the center of the practice which otherwise had just become a long list of impossible and largely irrelevant rules governing physical and verbal behavior. Whilst I respect people who are trying to do the impossible job of keeping all these physical and verbal rules Ordination is about changing your mind It’s the mind that matters and how much it has changed, not the rulebook. In clinging to the vows rather than why they exist in the first place you have aptly demonstrated that you don’t really understand ordination or what its purpose is. You certainly don’t understand the ten commitments of Kadampa ordination if you think they are the same as lay pratimoksha vows, but that’s not surprising because it’s not your tradition and you haven’t really thought about it.
4

Tenzin Peljor on October 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Reply

Hi newkadampatruth, thank you for taking time to read my additional comment.

Since the NKT robed members go into the public with the robes of Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns, claiming to be ordained followers of the Buddha and going against respected members of the Buddhist monastic order dressed in the robes of real monks and nuns, it should be clarified, that those NKT robed members are not actual Buddhist monks and nuns by those who are actual monks and nuns.

Since the bad behaviour of shouting, slander and wrong accusations in the public is not appropriate for Buddhist nuns and monks and also very uncommon even for lay Buddhist, the behaviour of NKT robed members created some confusion in the public, hence it is appropriate to clarify in the public, that NKT robed members are not actual Buddhist monks and nuns.

So then if NKT robed members violate the rules and destroy lay people’s faith it is at least not harmful for the order and the people, and the latter are able to put events into perspective if these issues are properly communicated.

Now, with respect to your post there is not much to say: A “Kadampa ordination (Mahayana)” is a non-existent phenomenon like the fur of a tortoise or the horns of a rabbit. Your post starts by assuming a non-existent to be an existent, this is ignoring reality, hence there is no basis for discussion. Like if you argue with an astrologer about the second moon revolving the earth. A second moon does not exist, hence it is stupid to argue about this, likewise a “Kadampa ordination (Mahayana)” does not exist, hence it can’t be compared. The measure of comparison is what the Buddha has taught for Buddhist monks and nuns according to the Vinaya and the Vinaya’s very heart, the Pratimoskha. Of course you are free to put facts upside down and to label it e.g. “concerned with the words rather than the meaning”, “sign of the degeneration of Buddhadharma in this world” or “clinging to the rules”. (Maybe for Gen Thubten and Gen Samden, the former successors of KG, and others within NKT it would have been better if they had “clung to the rules”…)

Everybody is free to be cheated or to cheat himself or herself. I don’t follow that approach anymore, though I did when I followed the NKT wholeheartedly.

Thee good news is: Distorted Views will finally collapse because they have no basis in reality.

So then lets try to focus on seeing reality as it is.
5

newkadampatruth on October 20, 2009 at 11:57 am
Reply

Tenzin, you are denying the Buddha’s teaching. There is nothing in the Kadampa ordination that contradicts Buddha’s teaching. It’s like Hinayanists denying that Buddha taught the Mahayana or Vajrayana when the very basis of those yanas is the criterion by which they judge something to be Buddha’s teaching – if it fits into the ‘three baskets’ or pitakas.

The foundation of the Kadampa ordination is the embodiment of the three baskets – renunciation, moral discipline, mental stabilization and wisdom. It has already been shown how the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk can be placed within the ten commitments of Kadampa ordination, therefore your labelling Kadampa ordination as a non-existent is a wrong view akin to denying karma, past and future lives and enlightenment itself, and it is an action that denigrates the Buddha’s teaching. You are, in effect, abandoning Dharma.

It is wrong to deny that something is Buddha’s teaching just because the format is different to what you are familiar with.
6

Bhikkhu Anandabodhi on October 21, 2009 at 11:27 am
Reply

This is just self-serving, self justificatory nonsense! Two things:

1)Buddha said in the Pattimokha Sutta that as long as the Vinaya exists, the lamp of the Dhamma will continue to shine.

2) Whereas the Mahayana Bodhisatta and the Vajrayana vows are endowed on the mental continuum, the Vinaya vows are physically imbued during the Vinaya ordination process (ask Kelsang Gyatso).

Thus, for the Dhamma to enjoy continued existence, the Vinaya vows, vows that have existed in an unbroken continuum from the time of the Buddha, must be endowed via the traditional ceremony by a qualified vow holder.

It is therefore not the format which is the issue. For the vows to be genuine Vinaya, they must be imbued via the ceremony which has been repeated continuously down the ages.

Any attempt to fabricate ones own system and mimic this, fails to recognize that the power of the Vinaya exists because of the physical nature of the vows, the bona fide ordination ceremony and the associated vows.

You may keep vows not to kill, steal etc, but these are not the monastic vows; the Buddhist monastic vows are the vows the body receives during a valid ordination ceremony conducted in accord with Vinaya procedures and by qualified preceptors who received their ordination from one of the remaining unbroken lineages.

Any other form of ordination is made up mimicry since the essential nature of the monastic vows is a physical blessing imbued from an unbroken lineage originating from the Buddha.

Since the Buddha himself said the Dhamma will only continue to exist as long as the Vinaya remains, the shaven headed fancy dressers of the NKT are not monks and nuns-they are actually destroyers of the Dhamma. Why? Because they undermine the Vinaya which the Buddha himself identified as an essential prerequisite to the continued existence of the precious Dhamma.

Outside the Mahayana, one sometimes encounters a degree of ill founded contempt for the Mahayana Buddhist ordination lineages. However, from the perspective of both the Theravadin and Mahayana monastic ordination lineages, the NKT is a joke, a joke that would actually be quite funny f it did not toll the death knoll for genuine Dhamma.

You can call yourself an elephant if your grey, youve got a trunk and big floppy ears. If you paint yourself grey, put on plastic ears and attach a tube to youre nose, im afraid you dont become an elephant-YOURE JUST DRESSING UP.
7

Wright on October 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Reply

“There is nothing in the Kadampa ordination that contradicts Buddha’s teaching.”
The Buddha’s teaching on ordination is contained in the Vinaya. Is the NKT ordination found in the Vinaya? No.

Does the NKT ordination convey the spirit of the Buddha’s system of ordination? Since the ‘spirit’ of genuine Buddhist ordination has been conveyed in an unbroken line for generations through and is embodied in the ordination ceremonies according to the remaining valid ordination lineages, no, the NKT’s ordination does not convey the ‘spirit’ of Buddhist ordination.
Sorry NKT, in the ‘real’ Buddhist world, your ordination is considered fake. Clothes might make the man, but simply wearing robes and promising not to do things is not ‘Buddhist’ ordination, it is simply NKT ordination.

You also state: ‘The foundation of the Kadampa ordination is the embodiment of the three baskets – renunciation, moral discipline, mental stabilization and wisdom.’ er, that’s four. Renunciation is not one of the Three Baskets.

You invented a fourth basket and you invented an ‘ordination’. The difference is renunciation is part of the Buddha’s teaching (I think youll find its an aspect outlined primarily in the Sutra basket) On the other hand, NKT ordination cannot be found anywhere in the Buddha’s teaching, only the NKTs
8

Wright on October 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Reply

The simple solution is for the NKT to provide the scriptural citations which confirm the validity of their ordination. These, according to the NKT, are in the writings of Geshe Potowa and the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. OK; exactly where? Please provide the exact scriptural references which support your assertions. The argument will then be concluded (one way or the other;)
9

Johno on October 22, 2009 at 6:47 am
Reply

The thing over the three baskets is interesting. Recently, I spoke with an ex NKT monk who had taught for them for three years. He asked me why after practicing the Noble Eightfold Path and becming Buddha, practitioners still didnt have the power to help others. Sadly, I had to infrom him that the eightfold path is actually a Theravadin practice leading to Arhatship, not enlightenment. He was vey surprised. Two instances of NKT teachers demonstrating faulty knowedge of a very obvious distinction between Theravada and Mahayana practice-I am reminded of the story of the frog in the well who thought the moon was the only thing in the universe.
10

Anon on October 22, 2009 at 8:16 am
Reply

This is another example of how a combination of overwhelming hubris and ignorance have combined to create the paper tiger of the mighty NKT. Unlike the great non-sectarian masters of our time such as Khunnu Lama tenzin Gyaltsen, Gyatso and his followers have no proper understanding of the other Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions. They simply consider their own views superior because thats what ‘Geshe-la says’. Scratch the deceptive thin facade of the NKTs image and beneath it one finds that all that has been learned has been ‘the gospel according to..’.
The fact that someone who represents the organisation can demonstrate such ignorance in relation to:
a) the nature of ordination,and
b) the nature of the different Buddhist paths
particualry where those individuals hold positions of power within the organisation, indicates that NKT ‘Dharma’ does not provide the perfect means of preserving the purity of the Buddha’s teaching. Rather, it has become a vehicle for the expression of narrow minded, ignorant secatarian views and for the deluded to convince themselves of their spiritual superiority, only because they can think what they have been told to think. Buddha said that those who wish to practice should assay his teaching as if they were buying gold. In the NKT however, blind acceptance of the official ‘truth’ seems to be the order of the day. THINK FOR YOURSELVES-DONT JUST FOLLOW BECAUSE THOSE AROUND YOU DO! Remember what happens to lemmings?
11

Anon on October 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Reply

I also see that NewKadampaTruth claims that by denying the validity of the NKTs ordination, TP is creating the massive negative karma of ‘abandoning the dharma’. A proper reading of the commentaries seems appropriate. For instance, for a Dharma practitioner to claim it is not necessary for a Mahayanist to practice Hinayana teachings is one of the commonest examples given. I note Kelsang Gyatso, in justifying his made up ordination asks the question of why Mahayanists should practice Hinayana methods, since the Vinaya is part of the Hinayana tripitaka. Setting aside the fact that the Vinaya forms the foundation of all extant ordination lineages, in both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions,both of which have at their foundation the three baskets, Gyatso’s claim is very obviously a clear example of abandoning the Dharma. Moreover, to invent a teaching that is not contained within the three baskets and claim it is dharma, as in the case of NKT ordination (which they themselves admit is not contained within the Vinaya) constitutes the equally dangerous practice of ‘preaching false dharma’.

Before NKTruth starts to make such wild allegations, I suggest he/she takes out some time to study the commentaries by the great masters of the past, those who preserved the purity of the teachings for thousands of years by strictly following the Buddha’s teaching, not by making it up as they went along.
Once again, by opening his’her mouth, NKTruth, official NKT spokesperson proves that he/she does not even understand the basic dharma of the traditions.Sole representatives of Pure dharma tradition in the west? Yeah, right.
12

JD on October 22, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Reply

Here, here!
In fact the whole comment, which identifies ‘abandoning the dharma’ as “denying karma, past and future lives and enlightenment itself, and denigrating the Buddha’s teaching” Is actually a list of the principle ways of ‘holding wrong views’, the tenth non-virtue, and not the various means of abandoning dharma listed in the teachings. For goodness sake NKT, can’t you find anyone who knows anything about Dharma before you start preaching it to others? Your like dodgy mechanics who claim to be able to fix cars but dont even know which bit goes where! Kelsang Gyatso-dont send boys to do men’s jobs!
13

Jackie B on October 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Reply

‘There is nobody in the three realms who is more all-knowing than the perfectly accomplished Buddha
It is therefore neccessary to adhere faithfully to the Sutras and Tantras which are the words of the Buddha
To add anything false to the Sutras and Tantras renders one liable to criticism from the exalted ones`
Sakya Pandita

Didnt KG praise Sapan as an all knowing enlightened being? So why does he go against his words?
14

AB on October 24, 2009 at 7:51 am
Reply

Well, NKTruth. Where is your response? The scriptural citations for example. You know, the one’s on which NKT ordination is based. After all, if it cant be found in the Buddhist scriptures IT IS NOT THE BUDDHAS TEACHING. In other words, if your ordination canot be fully justified on the basis of scripture, it is a false teaching. Come along now; hurry!Otherwise, your silence stands as a confirmation of this
15

Les on October 24, 2009 at 11:05 am
Reply

I read elsewhere the claim that the NKT protector was an enlightened being. Someone asked them to provide scriptural references for the assertion that this deity was recognised in the Sakya tradition as an enlightened being. Guess what? No evidence provided. So dont expect answers soon on this…….because there arent any.

PS take a look at the NKT edited Wiki page on Pabongka which claims he did not hold sectarian views. Then check out volume cha of his collected works. Then consider:
“Apart from the doctrine of Manjughosha Tsongkhapa alone, the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous.” (See ‘Compilation of Questions and Answers on an Assortment of Subjects from Both the Open and Secret Teachings’ at http://aciprelease.org/r6web/flat/S0505E_T.TXT)
Er??????????
Basically NKT make their false claims on the basis of two main criteria-
* No evidence
* Evidence which totally contradicts their assertions

‘Illogical Captain’
16

JD on October 24, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Reply

This is exactly how the NKT and Gyatso flourish: through ignorance. Those of us who know Tibetan and have access to Pabongka’s Collected Works have the freedom and ability to access the contents of volume Cha. In it, one finds numerous examples of sectarian bigotry, even to the extent that Pabongka cultivated links with the Chinese to close non-gelug monasteries. However, most Westerners dont have such ability or access and so the NKT are free to write any old rubbish and claim it as truth. Maybe they can set Trinlay Kelsang Billman (their Tibetan ‘expert’) to translate the particular volume to which I refer. However, since this would reveal the bigotry of their forefather, I feel quite this is one translation Bellboy will not be running to translate
17

Hue Hai on December 12, 2010 at 7:31 am
Reply

I would like to clarify a mistake in the above article. You state that the Dharmagupta lineage is followed in Japan, but in fact the Vinaya is no longer extant in the Japanese traditions. They have married clergy, at least as far as men go. Nuns are traditionally celibate, but given that the male clergy no longer follow the pratimoksha, it follows that a bhikshuni ordination no longer exists in Japan as well as bhikshunis require bhikshus for their ordinations.

South Korea also has some orders that either allow for married clergy, such as the Jingak and Taego orders, although the majority of Buddhist clergy there are traditional celibate bhikshus and bhikshunis.
- 18
  
  tenpel on December 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you for pointing out this mistake Hue Hai.
19

NKT monks beat retreat over wind farm « Tibetan Buddhism :: Struggling With Difficult Issues on February 11, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Reply

[…] of Tharpaland to one of Britain’s largest energy firm who builds close by a wind farm. The “monks” of the New Kadampa Tradition claim that they “have been forced to sell” […]
20

Kelsang Chitta Karuna on December 8, 2015 at 9:44 am
Reply

NKT monks & nuns are novice only. This article and its relation to full vinya ordination is not relevant. And the author has a misunderstanding of vinaya.
- 21
  
  tenpel on December 8, 2015 at 11:28 am
  Reply
  
  They are not even novice. And of course if they claim to be Buddhist monks and nuns the article and its relation is fully relevant. It is a wrong claim that I misunderstand the Vinaya. You seem to project your own lack of knowledge and misunderstandings onto me. As a start read what Tsongkhapa himself says: http://info-buddhism.com/Essence-of-the-Vinaya-Ocean-Tsongkhapa.html
  - 22
    
    WishingYouPeace on December 8, 2015 at 5:04 pm
    Reply
    
    As a monk or a nun, what is your main practice and what is its purpose? You can cling to rules but unless you practically understand this, your ordination isn’t even functioning. You can hold as many vows as you like and with pride declare yourself to be a Gelong or a Gelongma, but if you can’t even remember them, what’s the point? Can you even remember your 253 vows, much less keep them in this modern age?
    - 23
      
      tenpel on December 8, 2015 at 6:46 pm
      Reply
      
      Just because it is hard to keep 253 vows it is incorrect to invent a new ordination as the NKT has done it and attacking those who follow the footsteps of the Buddha, portraying oneself even as superior or more “modern”. The lack of the Vinaya in the NKT led towards the situation that nobody really knows when their vows are transgressed and misinterpretations of the Vinaya combined with misunderstood tantric practices and self-deception led to the situation that both “heart sons” of Kelsang Gyatso and other well known NKT teachers committed grave faults such as having sexual intercourse with women or nuns. If you had studied the Vinaya you would have more respect and appreciate it no matter how hard it is.
      - 24
        
        maik108 on December 10, 2015 at 11:30 am
        Reply
        
        I agree with Tenpel re the validity of the Vinaya. Briefly if I may outline my position on this topic:
        
        I believe the NKT’s ordination ceremony and ‘revised’ ordination vows are fair enough; in and of themselves I don’t believe they are a problem. As Geshe Tashi himself says, Buddha Shakyamuni never taught the 253 vows directly or within any specific ceremony. Also HH the Dalai Lama seems lately willing to change several aspects of Buddhist doctrine, such as the existence of mount meru, for example.
        
        What is a problem though, is what Tenpel said here: “portraying oneself even as superior or more “modern”.” This is definitely a sentiment held by quite many within the NKT, that their simplified version of ordination is somehow superior and more in line with modern life. This also prevents them from looking deeper into their own spiritual tradition and culture, which includes the Vinaya.
        
        Also it is clear that many authentic texts, that are also accepted as authentic by GKG, stress the importance of upholding the Vinaya. So the NKT have to accept this criticism, but of course it is their right to practice whatever ordination vows they wish.
        
        25
        
        Brian on December 10, 2015 at 4:16 pm
        Reply
        
        It would be impossible to look ‘deeper into their own spiritual tradition and culture’ because there is no one in all those many NKT centres who can read the actual texts you hold up as “authentic”–just the highly edited ghostwritten Tharpa paperbacks, which on close examination are chock full of mistakes and misapprehensions. Just slightly better than the Lobsang Rampa books.
        On the other hand, good progress has been made by those who have taken the time to learn Tibetan and Sanskrit: Nithartha, Tsadra, Shambhala Translation Committee, Lotsawa House and so forth –not to mention extensive work being done in universities including in China…
        The dolgyalpas in comparison have no prominent scholars to speak of and are just collecting more and more money and talking nonsense online like, for example Maik saying ‘HHDL should apologize for the ban’ which I feel is absolute rubbish.
        
        26
        
        maik108 on December 10, 2015 at 5:09 pm
        
        Brian, please give examples of your inferential and sweeping statements, otherwise they have absolutely no meaning or function. IN the previous blog post which was shut down, I gave examples as well as reasons which suggest that Geshe Kelsang’s books are as good and accurate a presentation of Gelug/Madhyamaka Buddhism as any other. I gave some brief comparisons with other texts as well. Now you please do the same and prove the opposite.
        
        Dolgyalpas have no scholars, you say; yet I am certain even HH Dalai Lama would strongly disagree with that statement, as many prominent Lamas of the 20th and current century have been, or are, Shugden practitioners.
        
        Please only respond to me if your comment contains some substance, thank you in advance 😉
        Best/M
        
        27
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm
        
        I agree partially with you Maik, like I agree partially with Brian.
        
        Brian has some points, like this one “On the other hand, good progress has been made by those who have taken the time to learn Tibetan and Sanskrit: Nithartha, Tsadra, Shambhala Translation Committee, Lotsawa House and so forth –not to mention extensive work being done in universities including in China…” but what he says is mixed with polemics and exaggerations.
        
        We won’t have a good discussion without sticking to facts and avoiding polemics.
        I accept ‘HHDL should apologize for the ban’ as your opinion but not as a fact.
        
        So maybe we all – including me – can get more focussed on good arguments.
        
        28
        
        maik108 on December 10, 2015 at 9:32 pm
        
        Thanks for your comments, I will go through them. Just briefly to answer this first post:
        
        I completely agree that amazing work and progress has been done by a variety of authors and committees who have been involved in translating many major texts. Unfortunately I lack time to discover and read them all…! But certainly the latest Lamrim Chenmo trilogy from Snow Lion as well as the books from Karl Brunnhölzl are a fantastic contribution to Buddhist literature in western languages. We are also seeing more Dhammapada translations and commentaries appearing, which is great.
        
        Btw, my comment about HHDL was slightly mis-spoken. What I meant to say was not that he didn’t apologize for the ban and should have, but that he didn’t apologize for many of the problems that developed because of the ‘ban’ (mostly in the late 90s), which in many people’s opinion he should have.
        
        29
        
        Brian on December 11, 2015 at 3:33 pm
        
        And who is the editor-in-chief of the Lamrim Chenmo trilogy of books from Snow Lion?
        
        ‘Disturbingly, the NKT have been known to disfigure photos of their critics faces, put that face on t-shirts, and then have devotees (ordained Nuns no less) wear the shirts over their Buddhist robes – No, this is not made up.   Are you attending NKT meditation classes? Is this completely opposite from what you usually see when visiting an NKT centre? The shock is understandable, but it’s happening. Please investigate the NKT *IN DEPTH* before committing to them. Show them the video, ask if it’s true and see what they say. Please share here what they had to say if you do ask!  Their marketing material with images of sunsets and smiles hide a completely different side.’
        
        30
        
        tenpel on December 11, 2015 at 8:06 pm
        
        When I understand it correctly Maik attributes these errors to NKT and doesn’t draw a connection that these are the result of Kelsang Gyatso’s leadership and the hostile and aggressive mind of Kelsang Gyatso himself who holds a deep grudge against HHDL. It is not uncommon that NKT followers try to sort out their experiences that way. We tried that to in Berlin but luckily Kelsang Gyatso was present and replied “I, I am the NKT” and in that way all criticism against NKT was successfully undermined, because who dares to say the Buddha, Kelsang Gyatso, has faults? Nobody was able to to that and all were caught up in fear, confusion or delusion, even thinking the Buddha, Kelsang Gyatso, had subdued the negative minds of those who dare to see faults in NKT. Those who didn’t have the opportunity to face the manipulations and power trips by Buddha Kelsang Gyatso directly will have it harder to understand that the faults of the NKT system are directly coming from the top …
        
        31
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 5:56 pm
        
        The the thesis “Dolgyalpas have no scholars” makes some sense when it is been considered from the perspective of the current situation. The three greatest Gelug scholars of Sera of the recent past – among them KG’s own teacher Geshe Lhundup Sopa and Geshe Jampa Gyatso – didn’t practice Shugden or gave it up. Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche – as far as I know – were not considered to be great scholars but great masters. A great master is not necessarily a great or prominent scholar. While Pabongkha Rinpoche had problems on the debate ground and hold an minor Geshe degree (the lowest when I remember correctly), Trijang Rinpoche made his Geshe Lharampa in an early age of 23 when I remember correctly. So he is definitely a scholar but a great one? This has to be further investigated. Whoever has a Geshe Lharampa can be considered a scholar but to be a great one or prominent one, such a person must be outstanding among those Geshe Lharampa scholars.
        
        Prominent present day Shugden pas like Lama Gangchen, Kundeling Nga Lama, Tsem Tulku are not great or prominent scholars. Gonsar Tulku, Kelsang Gyatso and Dagom Rinpoche however are scholars, but are they great ones or prominent ones? I am not so sure. About Tritul Rinpoche I know too less. Looking from that perspective and seeing the activities of many prominent Shugden lamas + especially the NKT activities and knowledge, the statement “the dolgyalpas in comparison have no prominent scholars to speak of and are just collecting more and more money and talking nonsense online” makes some sense. But it is also polemical and includes a generalisation that might be very questionable. In the context of what Brian wrote it is also an attack against Maik. Well, neither Maik nor I are great scholars either, isn’t it? I guess Brian you know at least Tibetan or Sanskrit unlike we?
        
        32
        
        Brian on December 10, 2015 at 8:05 pm
        
        Trijang senior was certainly erudite, but his successor refused to study, preferring hot European cars. Kelsang Gyatso may well be, but he is also a samaya breaker. He was called Geshe but expelled from his dratsang. I can send a link for this document for those who will say ‘show proof’ but there really is no need, is there?
        As far as I am concerned, Maik does not set the agenda of Tenpel’s blog and certainly not mine. Maik is no different than those who come to this venue posing as a Zen or Bonpo or whatever. I see a pattern in his method: first preface with polite minor qualms or misgivings about the NKT, then rationalize out of it and meanwhile interject radical dolgyal cult rhetoric into the sandwich and call it productive discussion.
        Three people murdered next door to the Dalai Lama’s house according to the HP police and Interpol and he is supposed to apologize to you? I think not.
        
        33
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 10:28 pm
        
        Brian, for a fruitful discussion it is good to “assume good faith”. I assume good faith in Maik in so far as I insinuate that he is honest in his motivation to get to the bottom of things and not to fit phenomena in his own views. If he is open to really investigate, if he is open for good arguments, good reasons and facts, not being led by bias, and if we don’t treat him with hostility but are replying without polemics or bad arguments or just black and white attacks, there is at least a chance for mutual understanding and improvement of knowledge. If he doesn’t have an open mind to get to the bottom of things, this will sooner or later manifest.
        
        BTW, Maik, I will be soon in the UK and, as we agreed, happy to meet you and to discuss with you.
        
        34
        
        maik108 on December 11, 2015 at 8:57 am
        
        I was just going to ask you about that 😉 When exactly will you be in the UK and where will you be staying? Definitely hope to meet you then!
        
        35
        
        tenpel on December 11, 2015 at 1:48 pm
        
        I will be there from the about the 6th to 16th January or so, in different towns, including London. I have to fix the details yet and I’ll let you know asap. I think private discussion will be more effective at least to understand each other better.
        
        36
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm
        
        Brian, “which on close examination are chock full of mistakes and misapprehensions. Just slightly better than the Lobsang Rampa books” is quite of an exaggeration or quite untrue. There are definitely faults and error in the books – especially Shantideva’s root text – but the books are better than Lobsang Rampa’s books.
        
        BTW, Lama Gangchen is just in town – in my former cult near Berlin http://www.tashi-choeling.de/sonderprogramm.html There they will perform a theatre play. Last year the head, “Her Holiness Lama Dechen Tulku Rinpoche” – being recognised by 1) Nga Lama “Kundeling Rinpoche Lobsang Yeshe (His Holiness, sorry), 2) HH TYS Lama Gangchen Tulku Rinpoche (or more simply “Mahasiddha”) and 3) HH Tritul Rinpoche (three important Shugden Lamas) as a tulku – played last year a Domina with the respective dress code. (A role that fits her personality well but not a role a nun should play.) Some members of the audience understood that this is highly inappropriate for a Buddhist nun and left shocked the performance.
        
        What to say, hard to not become cynical …
        
        37
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 5:33 pm
        Reply
        
        Hi Maik, the NKT ordination vows themselves are not a problem. They are perfectly fine in so far as they rooted in the tradition and concordant with the so called “Rabjung vows” – vows that monks or nuns receive before they receive the Getsul ordination. However, such a person is neither a real ordained nor a real lay person but an “in-between” who is not a member of the monastic order, but aspires to become one. Such a person can’t attend the bimonthly Uposadha (Sojong) nor wear the yellow upper robe.
        
        The problem start with the non existence of the Vinaya, the non existence of an intact monastic order, the non existence of clear explanations of the Vinaya and when vows are broken and when not, the lack of understanding of the importance and the training within the Vinaya etc. As a monk who also followed the NKT ordination I can tell you that this creates big confusions and great errors and is no help for the lifestyle of a monk or nun. (I lack now time to go into detail but could if you are interested).
        
        The other problem is the pride of an inferior ordination and the contempt to those who have a higher ordination which is not the spirit of the Dharma and not the spirit of the Vinaya – its totally against Buddha’s teachings.
        
        Also it is clear that many authentic texts, that are also accepted as authentic by GKG, stress the importance of upholding the Vinaya. So the NKT have to accept this criticism, but of course it is their right to practice whatever ordination vows they wish.
        
        I agree and I would like to add: in the Vinaya the principle of harmony is that to have respect for the elders. The NKT as a new tradition should be respectful to all those who are elder to them; not only fully ordained persons like HHDL (or even just Getsuls who have a higher ordination than themselves) but also to their root, Tibetan Buddhism. But instead they attack fully ordained monks, respected elders, wise teachers, Tibetan Buddhism and feel superior to those, like rebellious, stupid infants.
        
        38
        
        maik108 on December 11, 2015 at 9:23 am
        
        Hi Tenpel, yes I also see the NKT form of ordination to equate to Rabjung. With respect to these vows and putting the superiority complex to one side for a moment, I think it is a perfectly acceptable decision for the NKT to make. There are many aspects of traditional Buddhism that many people feel are more cultural rather than ‘actual dharma’; some of these may be problematic in our modern, democratic society.
        
        For the sake of argument, the Mulasarvastivada has, out of the extant lineages, the highest number of additional vows required for women; furthermore, I do believe it does not even offer gelong ordination for women at all (please correct me if I’m wrong). The NKT have bypassed this issue, which many would deem sexist, while also bypassing a form of hierarchy, at least theoretically.
        
        Whether we feel this to be correct or not is another thing, but I can see why a tradition might take such a route.
        
        So the last point we agree on in part: naturally, as Rabjungs, the NKT monks and nuns should respect their elders, superiors, etc. Many of them do not and clearly display signs of arrogant superiority. Some (not all) of the activities of NKT ordainees within the ISC display this to a shocking extent.
        
        However: I completely disagree with your last sentence, in which you state that the whole NKT tradition feel superior to elders and attack them. This is where you err. There are very many teachers who are extremely respectful to other ordainees, elders, Gelongs and Geshes, not to mention very respectful towards Theravadins. This I have witnessed in their speech, actions (meeting such ‘elders’) and advice. Some examples of this have been Gen Losang, Gen Tharpa, Ani Khunpen, Gen Tharchin, Gen Chodor, Ani Jima and many more. I have also had two teachers who directly advised me to do some retreat with the Thai Forest monks here in the UK.
        
        I suppose your last comment is a reaction to what you have seen happening in demonstrations. But as you know, I believe that a) this is a minority, and b) for those who are involved, they feel they have valid reasons and do not consider HH DL to be a superior elder, which is their right.
      - 39
        
        WishingYouPeace on December 10, 2015 at 5:44 pm
        Reply
        
        My point is you may not be following in the footsteps of Buddha unless you actually understand the purpose and main practice of ordination. When you cling to arcane rules and criticize others for not doing so it’s going to be difficult. You’re criticizing NKT monks and nuns for trying to follow in the footsteps of Buddha because you don’t agree with their vows, but your lack of agreement just highlights your own lack of understanding of the nature and function of ordination, so are you actually following in the footsteps of Buddha?
        
        Perhaps you should stop wasting time criticizing your former tradition and practise your own instead?
        
        40
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 6:09 pm
        Reply
        
        Instead of attacking me you have the burden to prove your thesis by using quotes from scriptures and by using good reasoning as I have don it in my post above.
        
        So your conclusion falls back on yourself:
        
        Perhaps you should stop wasting time criticizing your former tradition* and practise your own instead?
        
        * The NKT is a bunch of Gelug teachings and Kelsang Gyatso said himself that the NKT is Gelug: “We are pure Gelugpas”. Therefore all NKT people, including you, waste your time and accumulate negative karma by deludedly criticising your own former tradition, the Gelug school, and by deludedly criticising the Vinaya as taught by Atisha and Tsongkhapa, and the two great Vinaya masters: Gunaprabha and Shakyaprabha.
        
        41
        
        tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 10:18 pm
        
        I understand now why there is a new activity by NKT followers regarding this topic …
        
        https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2015/12/03/geshe-kelsang-gyatsos-modern-buddhism-who-are-the-kadampas-geshe-tashi-clears-the-distortion-of-four-kadampa-deities/#comment-383638
- 42
  
  Sam Hoff on December 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm
  Reply
  
  Kelsang Chitta Karuna,
  
  See these videos:
  - 43
    
    tenpel on December 8, 2015 at 11:47 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you, Sam. Forgot to update the post and included now the link to Geshe Tashi’s explanation + this video too:
44

Sam Hoff on December 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Reply

maik108,

Kelsang Gyatso’s books are not representative of Madhyamaka.

The following quotes of Sakya Loppon Namdrol are representative of Madhyamaka:

“everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not “like an illusion”, as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge — completely equivalent.”

“Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.”

“Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising — Manjushri states in PP sutras “Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth.””

“The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, etc., are all synonyms. This is why Manjushri says “Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.” The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.”

“Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena. This is the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna according to Gorampa and many other critics of Tsongkhapa, not the mere emptiness of inherent existence which is common which the śravaka systems. Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen.”
- 45
  
  tenpel on December 10, 2015 at 10:20 pm
  Reply
  
  Sam, if you want to discuss that topic it makes more sense to discuss it in the context of the Gelug school or Tsongkhapa’s teachings. The NKT doesn’t see themselves as the inheritors of Sakya Loppon Namdrol but Tsongkhapa. Your approach is like talking of the earth though the other person speaks about a house.
- 46
  
  Bristol Lad on December 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm
  Reply
  
  Sam,
  why are you suddenly quoting Malcom (Loppon Malcolm Smith [Kunga Namdrol] ) from Dharmawheel all the time? I have great respect for his erudition and learning but it doesn’t mean I need to read quotes from him here. Malcolm’s background is Sakya and latterly Dzogchen – I would be surprised if he explained Madhyamaka according to Tsongkhapa’s view.
  Rather than trying to get us to see the error of our ways regarding Madhyamaka, why not accept that there is not a one-fit explanation. We are all at different stages, and different explanations will give us the understanding to move further on the path. Eventually, everyone will gain a direct realisation that is beyond any of these conceptualisations.
47

Carol on October 4, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Reply

I do meditation other types not just Buddhist its as if they are wary
of saying lots of the usual stuff to me. That’s because I trust my intuition as I am clairvoyant.
Many take refuge from real world in centres, anyone should av to practise patience earn own money in outside world. Who pays their keep? also they only rely on gesh la there any many other traditions yet they don’t speak of them if u do they don’t like it.
Which is not allowing free speech ive told them I believe in my healing gifts and only use meditation now. I did dorje shugden prayers but theyre brainwashing I got ill as had taken empowerment yrs ago. When this happened twice I felt energy been drained low vibe spirit?
48

Carol on October 4, 2018 at 3:02 pm
Reply

also sooo many just do teacher training unordained that teach lost patience easy with me when I did voluntary work. I made it clear we are all equal all living beings in fact im poorly so thinking of moving on as not much there for me. Last week they crammed two classes in one day plus a meal supper then a full day retreat. Is that not to grab plenty cash for their centre their keep.
Do other monks other traditions take ordination different?

	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…
	Tenpel on Heartwood Hosts Its First Gath…
	Exposing the New Kad… on Who is demonstrating against t…
	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…
	Peartree Layne on Who is demonstrating against t…
	astrologerdevanand on Hurts within the Karma Kagyu s…
	mikepazda on Western Shugden Society / New…
	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…

Is the NKT claim correct?

The Change of Vinaya Rules

The Buddha

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s views on ordination contradict the Mahayana and Je Tsongkhapa[1]

Rejecting the hearers vehicle

Not training for the sake of others’ faith

The Lineages of Buddhist monks and Nuns and the Lineages of Buddhist Ordination[4]

Downloads[5]

See Also

For more about monasticism see

Rate this:

Share this:

Related

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s views on ordination contradict the Mahayana and Je Tsongkhapa^[1]

The Lineages of Buddhist monks and Nuns and the Lineages of Buddhist Ordination^[4]

Downloads^[5]