New Kadampa Tradition

by tenpelDecember 14, 201312:44 pm

Is the NKT a Pure Lineage of Tsongkhapa? The Problem With Root Texts Within the NKT Study Program

GUEST POST by Joanne Clark

Online statements change frequently and I know that organizations, such as the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) evolve and change. However, at the time of this writing, (Dec. 8, 2013) these claims still appear on a NKT website as part of their statement of purpose. As stated by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (GKG) in 1998, they write:

We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn’t matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa Lamas and Geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries to Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa tradition and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely.

Later in that same web page is stated:

The NKT exclusively teaches Je Tsongkhapa’s doctrine

All of Geshe Kelsang’s books, which are the core of the three NKT study programs, are based on Je Tsongkhapa’s commentaries to the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni, Buddha Vajradhara, and other great Buddhist Masters.”[1]

The Nkt’s choice of the word “pure” in regard to their statement of purpose, is in itself problematic. However, that discussion is not my purpose here. Readers may view an examination of that topic here.

For my purposes here, I will be using the term “purity” to refer to a meaning of authenticity or correctness—and address NKT’s claim in that regard.

Even in that context, even without knowing anything about the NKT, such claims seem to be extraordinary. Anyone who knows anything at all about Tibetan history and has read any of the biographies of the Kadamapa masters, will be aware that Tsongkhapa’s lineage is a compilation of different lineages (Kagyue, Sakya, Kadampa) and emerged through the efforts of many translators, many scholars, and many extraordinary and realized meditators. The emergence of the Gelugpa was a joint effort of cooperation between different lamas, lineages and translators over hundreds of years. In light of this, GKG’s claim that he alone, with no assistance from Gelug practitioners, scholars or translators outside of NKT, is capable of bringing a pure tradition of Tsongkhapa to the West is quite remarkable!

For example, here is what is missing in the NKT study program from Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition:

there is no tradition of the Vinaya as practiced by Tsongkhapa (Vinaya constitutes the rules and commentaries for the ethics of monks and nuns)
there are no English translations of the 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa’s work in the NKT study program.
there are only two texts by Je Tsongkhapa himself in the NKT, the Three Principle of the Paths (two pages) and a lamrim prayer (one page)
there are none of the five Maitreya texts which form an important corpus in traditional Gelug study programs.
the study and practice of the combination of the three Highest Yoga Tantras, Guhyasamaja, Heruka and Yamantaka do not exist in NKT. These are central to the Gelug lineage and there is a good translation of Tsonkhapa’s commentary on Guhyasamaja available.

I believe that NKT students tread a difficult path. The NKT organization has placed itself well outside of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism—and yet NKT study programs are positioned in the center of mainstream Tibetan Buddhist study. Students are taught to revere Buddha, Nagarjuna, Atisha, Tsongkhapa and Shantideva, the same Buddhist masters that we in mainstream Tibetan Buddhist circles revere. They study from those masters. We also study from those masters. Yet oddly, students are lead to believe that NKT is somehow different, that NKT is “pure”.

Resulting from this is a likely inference that Gelug/Kadam study and practice outside of NKT is not “pure.”—not authentic. This inference results also from the fact that no texts by Tsongkhapa, Atisha, the Buddha, Shantideva, Nargajuna or any other teacher, translated outside of Tharpa Publications, is integrated into NKT study programs or even sold in NKT centers—and no commentaries by teachers other than GKG are studied within the study program. In that way NKT student are totally dependent on Kelsang Gyatso’s texts and if there are any faults in them, or if they miss important points of the path, they cannot go beyond these limitations or correct their misunderstandings derived from it. Therefore it is possible that this inside/outside path (pure/impure dichotomy) could place students at risk for some confusion!

In fact, so little attention is paid to the study of root texts in the NKT study program that the one translation of a major root text available to NKT students contains many errors. Moreover, these errors have not been noticed or corrected in the ten years that the book has been in circulation! This text is the Tharpa Publications translation of Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara. Last I counted, there were over 40 verses rendering a different meaning to that given in four other translations that I possess! Worse still, many of these errors do not appear in GKG’s commentary on the text. Despite Tharpa’s claims that the translation was done “under the compassionate guidance of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso,” he seems unaware of the many errors that it contains!

Here are some stark examples. In the second verse of the text, Shantideva makes a gesture of humility as part of his statement of purpose in composing the text. He writes, as translated by the Padmakara translation Group (and consonant with other translations), “

I thereby have no thought that this might be of benefit to others…” (p.33).

However, the translator from NKT reads this line quite differently and writes,

“My reason for writing this is to benefit others…” (p. 3)

GKG commentary favors the mainstream translation:

“Also, since he has no skill in the art of rhetoric or poetry, he has no intention of benefitting others who have already understood the teachings of Buddha.” (p. 14)

So it appears that GKG is probably reading from the Tibetan and is unaware that his translators have a different rendition! (Of course, GKG does not see this statement as an expression of humility as do other commentators, but that discussion is not my purpose here.)

In Chapter Five, verses 88-91, the Tharpa translation gives a dramatically different rendition to that of other translations, making one wonder if they were reading a different text! Here is an example:

In Verse 88, the Tharpa translation reads:

I should listen to Dharma
With respect and a good heart,
Recognizing it as the supreme medicine
For curing the pains of anger and attachment. (p. 61)

The Padmakara Translation Group (and others) translate as follows:

Do not teach to those without respect
To those who like the sick wear cloths around their heads,
To those who proudly carry weapons, staffs or parasols,
And those who keep their hats upon their heads. (p.74)

How on earth could two such completely different renditions occur?

GKG’s commentary on verse 88 reads:

“Dharma should never be taught to someone who lacks respect either for us or for Dharma itself. Teaching such a person will not benefit him or her and will only create downfalls, or obstacles, for oneself … Shantideva next gives a detailed account of the circumstances in which it is improper to teach Dharma. Because teaching should only be given to those who have the proper attitude we should never teach anyone whose dress, manner or bearing demonstrates disrespect. This would include those who cover their heads though they are not sick, those who have not put down their umbrellas … “ (p. 14)

So GKG is clearly addressing the translation as given by the Padmakara Translation Group (and three other translators), unaware that the Tharpa translation renders his commentary meaningless! Translation by Tharpa of the three verses following, 89-91, have exactly the same trouble, rendering inexplicable meanings that do not accord with any other translations or even GKG’s commentary.

And this is not the only occurrence of such discrepancies. They happen numerous times throughout the text (I’ve lost count!). In Chapter Eight, there are six verses on just two pages alone that render an entirely different meaning to all other translations!

Here is an example of two of these verses:

In verses 43-44, the Tharpa translation reads:

43. When we are very attached to someone
We want to see their face again and again;
But whether we see their face or not,
The real face always remains covered with skin.

44. If we were to remove that skin,
We would realize that they are not an object of desire
But an object of aversion;
So why do we develop attachment for others’ bodies?

The Padmakara Translation Group and GKG both read these verses differently, placing the context in a charnal ground and also in a traditional Indian wedding:

43. Oh what pains you went through just to draw the veil,
And lift the face that modestly looked down.
The face which, looked upon or not,
Was always carefully concealed.

44. That face for which you languished so …
Well here it is, now nakedly exposed.
The crows have done their work for you to see.
What’s this? You run away so soon?

GKG’s commentary reads:

“[43] In ancient India, whenever a man encountered a woman, her face was hidden by a veil. Even at the marriage ceremony, her face would be covered and she would be very bashful … [44] why is he not similarly attracted when, after death, her face is uncovered by vultures? Why does he not want to copulate with her then? Her body is still there but the man only wants to run away from it.” (p. 305).

Then later in Chapter Eight, there is this discrepancy involving two important verses:

In verses 97-98, the Tharpa translation reads as follows:

97. But why should I protect others
If their suffering does me no harm?
If we cherish only others, we find their suffering hard to bear;
So we definitely need to protect them.

98. It is not a wrong conception to think
That it will be I who experience the future suffering,
Because it will not be another person who dies
And yet another who is reborn. (p. 129)

This is another very strange translation that misses Shantideva’s meaning completely. The Padmakara Translation Group (and all others, including GKG) provide an opposing meaning:

97. Since pains of others do no harm to me
What reason do I have to shield myself?
But why to guard against “my” future pain which
Does no harm to this, my present “me”?

98. To think that “I will have to suffer it”
In fact is but a false conception—
In the present moment, “I” will perish;
At another time, another will be born. (p. 124)

GKG writes, ignoring the Tharpa translation: “As I said before, there is no reason for me to protect others from their misery. It causes me no harm. Then why do we work to eliminate the sicknesses of old age coming in the future or even the discomforts of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow? These future sufferings will do us no harm today. But if such misery is not prevented now I shall experience it in the future. This is a misconception. The self of this life will not experience the suffering of future lives.” (p.335).

Here is another example of Tharpa’s translation troubles:

In Chapter Six, Verse 123, the Tharpa translation reads:

If we harm a child
There is no way to please its mother.
In the same way, if we harm any living being,
There is no way to please the compassionate Buddha. (p.89)

This is a very nice translation and does convey a meaning very close to what Shantideva intended. However, I don’t believe that it is what Shantideva actually wrote! Here is the translation from Padmakara Translation Group:

Just as when a man who’s tortured in a fire,
Remains unmoved by little favors done to him,
There’s no way to delight the great compassionate Buddhas,
While we ourselves are causes of another’s pain. (p.95)

And GKG’s commentary on this reads:

“someone who is ablaze with fire finds no pleasure in receiving food and delicacies. Similarly, if we harm sentient beings and then offer elaborate gifts to the Buddha, these offerings will never please him.” (p. 254).

Once again, he clearly favors the translation done by the Padmakara Translation Group!

These are a few examples of the errors I found in the Tharpa translation of the Bodhicharyavatara made “under the compassionate guidance of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.” Indeed, translators (and lamas) are only human and errors will happen. I myself study this text using four different translations because I know that there will be discrepancies. However, the errors in the Tharpa translation are more pervasive and significant than I have seen anywhere else, and they could render the entire translation flawed. That in itself is not alarming, because there are probably other flawed translations out there. Nor is it my intention to nit-pick. However, GKG has made an extraordinary claim by saying that he alone, without assistance from other translators or commentaries, is capable of bringing the Kadampa/Gelug tradition “purely” to the West. And my question is: How can he claim purity with errors such as these? With errors such as these, he can only claim to be human and to need more help from others!

I also wonder why no student of NKT has ever questioned this confusion—this text was published over ten years ago! Have they become so confused that they don’t even recognize confusion when it appears? Or perhaps they simply have never cultivated the habit of critically reading a root text in conjunction with a commentary.

Thousands of hours of work has been done to translate into English the Kangyur and Tengyur—to translate the great works of Tibetan scholars such as Tsongkhapa—to translate the works of the great scholars of ancient India. Much more work is still to be done. This work is being done because authentic Buddhism cannot be brought to the West without the root texts. That is the robust tradition that Tsongkhapa followed. If the NKT is sincere in “studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as [their] example what the ancient Kadampa Lamas and Geshes did,” then surely they would follow the tradition of diverse and extensive study of the many root texts upon which the Kadampa tradition relies? Surely they would put much emphasis on providing students with (accurate!) translations of these texts? Perhaps instead of seeking to follow a “pure” lineage of Tsongkhapa, they would do better to follow a robust lineage of Tsongkhapa, one that questions and investigates and makes cross-references—and isn’t afraid to read texts that come outside of their one, narrow view?

GKG writes in Understanding the Mind:

“it is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism … studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions … the practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.” (pp. 166-167).

Is that true? Or is there greater risk for confusion when students are not given opportunity to question and cross-reference many sources and texts, when they are denied full access to their critical faculty?

As the Buddha said,

Bhikshus and the wise should examine my teachings like goldsmiths analyze gold, by cutting, rubbing and scorching it. Examine my teachings in the same way and then put them into practice. Do not practice Dharma on the strength of blind faith alone.[2]

Contrary to this robust advice by the Buddha, the diet within the NKT study program could be called pre-digested, because all the study is interpreted by one individual alone. The root texts are almost exclusively provided to students through the one lens of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Pre-digested is the diet of invalids and babies. Does Geshe Kelsang believe that Westerners are incapable of digesting the rich diet of the ancient texts themselves? Incapable of receiving a full and nutritious diet?

Here is an example. In Lamrim Chenmo, Tsongkhapa writes extensively on the qualities necessary in a spiritual teacher. He quotes from authors such as Maitreya and advises students on how to show respect for the teacher, while still maintaining their ability to judge the teacher and critically analyze his/her teachings. He tells the story of Atisha and Serlingpa:

“The great Elder [Atisha] held the Madyamaka view and Ser-ling-ba held the view of a ‘true aspectarian’ Cittamatrin [Mind Only School]. Therefore, Atisha’s view was superior to that of Ser-ling-ba. Still, Atisha upheld Ser-ling-ba as the guru who was unrivaled amongst his gurus, because Atisha had obtained the spirit of enlightenment and a general presentation of the stages of the Mahayana path in dependence upon him.” (p. 82)

So yes, Atisha held Serlingpa in high esteem—however, he also refuted Serlingpa’s main philosophical standpoint. He did not allow reverence for Serlingpa to dull his own critical faculty. In the two major texts by GKG that I have viewed, Joyful Path of Good Fortune and Meaningful to Behold, there is no mention of Atisha’s philosophical differences with Serlingpa , though GKG does speak of Atisha’s great devotion for Serlingpa.

In addition, if one compares GKG’s main commentary on Lamrim, Joyful Path of Good Fortune with Tsongkhapa’s major commentary on Lamrim, Lamrim Chenmo, it appears that overall, GKG’s instructions on guru reliance are weighted towards blind faith, while Tsongkhapa’s are not. GKG advises us to view the lama as a Buddha, with the reasoning that the faults we see in our lama are actually faults in ourselves and our own faulty perceptions. In fact, I found no teaching whatsoever coming from GKG about how we are to act when the lama advises us to do something that is not in accord with the Dharma, no acknowledgement anywhere that lamas will have faults. He does not provide students with that important dimension to proper reliance on a spiritual teacher—nor does he allow them to believe their own eyes if they see faults.

On the other hand, Tsongkhapa acknowledges that lamas will have faults, saying “if you rely on nonvirtuous teachers and bad friends, your qualities will slowly diminish …” (p.90). He also quotes from several sources about what to do if the lama advises us wrongly: “… the Cloud of Jewels Sutra says, ‘With respect to virtue, act in accord with the guru’s words, but do not act in accord with the guru’s words with respect to nonvirtue.’” (86). Even in the context of the instruction “seeing the guru as Buddha,” Tsongkhapa’s advice is grounded in sound reason, steering students well away from blind faith. He reasons that focusing on the good qualities of our lamas, while ignoring their faults, will help us better cultivate those good qualities in ourselves. Unlike GKG, Tsongkhapa does not stress that it is our own misperception when we see faults in our lamas! He does not put blinkers on our eyes! Faults are faults—not seeing them is blindness. Not focusing on them is a useful training of the mind.

At least, that is my small understanding of Tsongkhapa’s instructions and how they differ from GKG’s. I don’t pretend that it is necessarily correct! I am simply trying to start a conversation, trying to demonstrate how studying commentaries beside the root texts can begin investigations that deepen our understanding and critical faculty. No one denies that NKT’s approach is one-sided. And I particularly don’t deny that GKG appears to be a very intelligent lama. However, I am asking if his approach is safe? Understanding the full diversity of Tsongkhapa’s advice to following a spiritual teacher—an approach that is similar to that taken by HH Dalai Lama in regard to Trijang Rinpoche, for example—is vital for Western students and it appears to be missing from the NKT study program. Students have no access to the extraordinary means—provided by Tsongkhapa himself—by which they can judge GKG’s commentaries—except those means provided by GKG!

There will be many who claim that I am attempting to “smear” the NKT. However, anyone who knows me will know that I also question practices within other Western Tibetan Buddhist organizations, such as Rigpa. I myself study and practice outside of mainstream Tibetan Buddhist communities because of some of the problems I have encountered. These troubles are not exclusive to the NKT, though I believe that the NKT has brought them to new and potentially very dangerous levels.

I believe that Westerners need to be having these conversations and asking these sorts of hard questions. Every Western Buddhist center that is reliant on a powerful, charismatic leader must be prepared to answer hard questions about the Buddhism being taught. If that Buddhism is weighted heavily towards the teachings and texts written by the powerful, charismatic leader, at the expense of the root texts of past masters, then questions need to be asked. Then students are at risk. Students are not being given the whole truth and then we can start talking about cults.

The NKT claims to be a “pure lineage” of Tsongkhapa—and yet they fail to provide students with a full study of Tsongkhapa’s teachings, one that includes the extraordinary breadth of his actual writings and thinking, as evident in those many root texts that have already been translated into English. They claim to provide a study of the Bodhicharyavatara—and yet the translation of the root text they study from is seriously flawed. I could be wrong, but I can see only two directions open to NKT. One is to simply use the translations of the root texts that are available (despite the fact that most have been done by mainstream Tibetan Buddhists and some are dedicated to HH Dalai Lama) and thereby create a fuller study program of Tsongkhapa’s lineage. The other option is simply to bite the bullet and admit that they are not pure Gelug, not pure Kadam, not pure Tsongkhapa nor Shantideva, but pure Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

Sources Used:

Tsonkhapa, (translated, 2000) The Great Treatise On The Stages of the Path; Volume One; Translated by The Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee; Snow Lion Publications; Ithaca, NY.

Shantideva, (translated 2003) Bodhicharyavatara; Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group; Shambhala Publishing; Boston, MA.

Shantideva (updated translation 2006); Bodhicharyavatara; Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group; Shambhala Publishing; Boston, MA.

Shantideva (translated 1979); Bodhicharyavatara; Translated by Stephen Batchelor; Tibetan Works and Archives; New Delhi, India.

Shantideva (translated 1997); Bodhicharyavatara; Translated by Vesna A. Wallace and B. Alan Wallace; Snow Lion; Ithaca, NY.

Shantideva, (translated 2002); Bodhicharyavatara; Translated by Neil Elliott “under the compassionate guidance of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso”; Tharpa Publications; Glen Spey, NY.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso; (revised 2007); Meaningful to Behold; Tharpa Publications; Glen Spey, NY.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso; (revised 1995); Joyful Path of Good Fortune; Tharpa Publications; Glen Spey, NY.

Gesehe Kelsang Gyatso (2002); Understanding the Mind: The Nature and Power of the Mind; Tharpa Publications; Glen Spey, NY.

[1] http://www.newkadampatruth.org/smear-nkt-practitioners-are-not-real-gelugpas#kadampa

[2] http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=335&chid=1398

107Comments

Add yours

1

Andrew Durling on December 15, 2013 at 11:25 am
Reply

What a fantastic post! Tsongkhapa’s work represents a synthesis of his vast knowledge and application of the huge variety of Tibetan Buddhist texts and lineages of his time. His model of combining of the best of all traditions within one coherent system is contradicted by the NKT’s rigid insistence on adherence only to GKG’s interpretation of what constitutes the ‘pure’ Gelug. To be fair to GKG, he says in his book, Joyful Path of Good Fortune, that Je Tsongkhapa’s original works should be studied, but in practice this instruction is always ignored in NKT study programmes, and I always had to resort to doing such study in own own time outside of NKT premises. And Je Tsongkhapa’s original works are never available for sale in NKT centres, which has always struck me as truly bizarre! It’s like not selling the original texts of the New Testament in Christian bookshops, whilst only selling commentaries upon those same New Testament texts! Many Christians may not bother studying the original Christian texts, but they would surely like to have them available even if only as occasional sources of reference and perhaps as holy objects in themselves. Given that even GKG teaches that Lamrim texts are so sacred that just touching a Lamrim text to the forehead of someone dying blesses that person and helps ensure a fortunate rebirth, then you would have thought that an original Lamrim text composed by Je Tsongkhapa would be regarded as a highly sought after holy object within the NKT and therefore would be a standard stock item in any NKT bookstore! But then even the holiness of GKG himself is no longer sacrosanct within the NKT, as revealed by the sale of Tharpaland in Scotland, which was blessed by GKG during his 3 year retreat there, thereby denying NKT students the chance to enjoy abiding in the blessings of that place which the NKT once regarded as extremely holy and sacred.
- 2
  
  Joanne on December 16, 2013 at 10:49 am
  Reply
  
  Yes, very good points, Andrew. Faith is such a loaded topic for Westerners. Even when I left my first Dharma center, where the emphasis was all on the one teacher, I found myself in a very traditional Kagyu monastery, with lots of different teachers– but the emphasis was still very much on faith in HH Karmapa and each of the high lamas who visited. This is all fine, I think there’s definitely a place for faith in Buddhist practice. But it limited my study and practice, which was still in its infant state. We in the West, from a Judo-Christian culture need help in how to integrate faith with the critical faculty and cultivation of intelligence so necessary in Buddhist practice. I think TB lamas in the West don’t quite get that.
3

Ecumenical Buddhist on December 15, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Reply

I , too , practise outside the sphere of ‘mainstream buddhism’ because time and time again, I met teachers who wanted complete and utter devotion to themselves alone and I judge that to be narcissism.
I found that listening to teachers who say ‘look into yourself and you’ll find the way’ seems to work for me, so no more reading texts and comentaries at all.
- 4
  
  tenpel on December 15, 2013 at 2:43 pm
  Reply
  
  I am sorry to hear that you met teachers that wanted complete and utter devotion to themselves alone. Very sad.
  
  I had good luck with the lama who became later my teacher. When I left NKT he recommended that I should go to every genuine and high teacher there is and listen to their teachings. At one point I had met so many that I felt I should settle with one or two but he said, it is good to go to all the great teachers there are to receive teachings. And of course, he does the same.
  
  (When I left NKT I was still in danger to follow dubious teachers, like Geshe Michael Roach. There are so many negative tendencies and acquaintances with certain mental habits and ideas based on NKT’ indoctrination, that there is a risk to follow similar teachers as Kelsang Gyatso after one left NKT just due to familiarity, which means one is attracted by persons who have a certain spectacular way of “Dharma hype” presentation, who are assertive, authoritarian, and who teach similar ways of guru devotion and expect that one should only follow them. Lamas who appear or also pretend to know everything, who give a type of a security feeling that they know, that they are great, extraordinary, and their Dharma is also great and extraordinary etc. One (Nyingma) lama I met – and who is seen as genuine and high – also wanted an exclusive reliance on him and his protector, and he argued quite the same as Kelsang Gyatso and NKT do. I just decided not to follow him and looked for lamas I can relate to in a healthy manner and who don’t ask me either directly or indirectly to follow exclusively only them. A high Rinpoche once said to ex-NKT: ‘if there is any lama who asks you to follow only them it is time to run away!’)
  - 5
    
    sarah on December 17, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    Reply
    
    I understand that some people are better off with getting teachings from several or many Lamas at a single time. However, I do not agree that Lamas that ask us to follow them is a bad Lama.
    
    Depending on the level of the student, a Lama will convey his own teaching. If the student can only improve spiritually by having one Guru rather than many, then the Lama will manifest in such ways. Take for example, a rock that rolls gathers no moss, so does a student that hops from one Lama to the other gathers nothing in the end. After all, if we’re new to a subject say science, and we have 5 teachers teaching us different solving skills, would that not slow down our learning process?
    
    It is of course not strange to look for different teachers. Many times, if a certain student need a particular practice but their teacher is unable to give to them, then they would look for another teacher to receive the teaching with their current Lama permission, or when their Lama tells them he has imparted all that he knows and could teach us no more, then we will search for another teacher.
    
    Plainly outlining that a Lama that demands his students to follow only Him is bad, is just too narrow minded. There’s 84,000 methods to enlightenment, which also means there’s 84,000 teachings to lead to enlightenment, how would we know if one of this is not included in these 84,000 methods? If we read the stories of the Mahasiddhas, many of these great masters has one Guru and practiced until they gained great realizations.
    
    Buddhism is not about following with blind faith. It is essential for the student to check out the teacher as according to the Lamrim. So the Guru disciple relationship is really essential for our spiritual well being. After all, if we can’t take instructions to the T from just 1 Lama, how will we take instructions from 10 Lamas! It is not possible.
    
    Personally, I know some ppl that like going around to learn from different Gurus and then later break their Samaya because it was just too much. For me, I dont believe gaining knowledge will bring me to enlightenment… I believe the practice and training I receive from my teacher will lead me to Enlightenment.
    - 6
      
      tenpel on December 17, 2013 at 9:51 pm
      Reply
      
      Yes, I agree, a lama is not necessarily a “bad lama” if he/she insists to only follow him … BUT …
      
      My understanding is that a genuine lama doesn’t ask a student to follow exclusively him because this is a decision the student has to make for him- or herself based on his wisdom and qualities. To my knowledge there is also not any canonical text that says one should do this.
      
      Now, if a lama asks to only follow him, what drives him? How can he be so sure to be the only source the student needs?
      
      Of course there might be people for whom it might be better to follow only few or even one teacher. But still its their decision and since the true “root lama” – that effects you the most – is not something you encounter (usually) at the very beginning of the path, caution and openness are the best protections, I think. If even such virtuous and exceptional teachers like Gampopa, Milarepa, Atisha, Tsongkhapa or Dromtönpa didn’t meet their most important teachers at the very beginning of their spiritual path, for me it is without much thinking that less virtuous people (like I) won’t meet their most important lamas at the beginning.
      
      There might be a danger of “hopping” but there might be also the danger of “bondage”, therefore, I think it is better to be open, cautious and to really read and learn from the great biographies of the great masters … Gampopa was for six years with the Kadampa teachers but when he heard Milarepa’s name he left them and followed Mila. Since Mila was enlightened and they had a deep karmic connection Gampopa didn’t have a need to go to any other lama. But before he met Milarepa, Gampopa had the need. And as far as I got it Gampopa made up his own mind and not Milarepa made up the mind of Gampopa.
      
      Then there are teachers who are skilled in Mind Training, Lojong, others in Mahamudra, others are expert in the practice of Vinaya or Madhyamakavatara. If you are clear what you search and need why not going to the greatest experts there are …, therefore, I agree with you “It is of course not strange to look for different teachers. Many times, if a certain student need a particular practice but their teacher is unable to give to them, then they would look for another teacher to receive the teaching” but I don’t agree necessarily with that they need “their current Lama permission” because (as far as I have understood it) there is no need to “ask a current Lama for permission” to go to another teacher. The correct approach is – Alex Berzin stresses this – that you decide what you want to do and then you go to your lama and say: “I want to do this, do you have any objections?” If the reason the lama gives is not according to the Dharma/Vinaya you can ignore it, if it makes sense, you should follow it. If you cannot understand it, you ask to explain it in a way that you can understand it. You can also apologize if you cannot put his advice into practice.
      
      Plainly outlining that a Lama that demands his students to follow only Him is bad, is just too narrow minded.
      
      Did I say this? I said that a (really) high Rinpoche, (a Hotuktu), said: “if a lama asks you to only follow him and not any other lama you should pack your things and run away.”
      
      There’s 84,000 methods to enlightenment, which also means there’s 84,000 teachings to lead to enlightenment, how would we know if one of this is not included in these 84,000 methods?
      
      What do you want to says with this?
      
      If we read the stories of the Mahasiddhas, many of these great masters has one Guru and practiced until they gained great realizations.
      
      Please give specific examples. Not even Marpa had only one teacher nor Naropa etc. The great biographies of the Mahasiddhas rather show that they followed different lamas until they met their “final guru” rather at a later time of their life who became only at that time the most effective teacher for their final goal.
      
      Buddhism is not about following with blind faith. It is essential for the student to check out the teacher as according to the Lamrim. So the Guru disciple relationship is really essential for our spiritual well being. After all, if we can’t take instructions to the T from just 1 Lama, how will we take instructions from 10 Lamas! It is not possible.
      
      What do you want to say with this? If I can take instruction from 1 Lama why can I not take instructions from 10 Lamas?
      How do you know that “we” “can’t take instructions from just 1 Lama”? I heard this argument only from misleading teachers. They bind you by claiming that “we” “can’t take instructions from just 1 Lama how will we take instructions from 10 Lamas! It is not possible.” What proof there is that this claim is true? It is just a claim, an unverified claim, how can he/she proof that “we” “can’t take instructions from just 1 Lama”? When you say “Buddhism is not about following with blind faith” please apply it also to such a claim otherwise you are a follower of blind faith 😉
      
      Personally, I know some ppl that like going around to learn from different Gurus and then later break their Samaya because it was just too much. For me, I dont believe gaining knowledge will bring me to enlightenment… I believe the practice and training I receive from my teacher will lead me to Enlightenment.
      
      How do you know that they broke their Samaya? And what was too much? How do you know that going to other teachers will be only for the purpose of “gaining knowledge”?
      You believe, yes, maybe you believe blindly.
      
      What you say sounds for me that you are under the spell of a rather not so genuine teacher. I know these type of arguments only from misleading teachers. Though Tsongkhapa argues in his Lamrim to have rather few than too many teachers (and he gives some reasons for this) he does not argue to only follow one teacher!
      
      What you write reminds me of NKT and some Shugden lamas. Outside of their sphere I never heard any such arguments nor did I read scriptures that give support to such thoughts.
    - 7
      
      Joanne on December 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
      Reply
      
      I agree, Sarah, that one lama can certainly be all one needs– it depends entirely on the personality and circumstances. Or just a few lamas can be fine. Or many lamas. However, if that one lama feeds you all the teachings of the Buddha and past masters, such as Nagarjuna and Tsongkhapa, through his one voice– without giving you many many quotes and many translations of their originals works, then you have big trouble. Then the Buddha, who is our one teacher ultimately, is being pushed aside in favor of the lama. That’s when questions need to be asked.
  - 8
    
    Bob on November 19, 2015 at 3:03 pm
    Reply
    
    Every spiritual path including buddhism in tibetan, chinese, japanese, catholic, jewish, therevada, mahayana, muslim whatever….. Has deluded and misguided beings in it… NKT has done more to spread dharma than most anyone… And yes all religions attract deluded beings who can be wuite grandiose at times… Blame it in your mind and other deluded minds…. A book doesnt have feelings
    - 9
      
      tenpel on November 19, 2015 at 9:28 pm
      Reply
      
      I think you miss the point, Bob. The NKT didn’t spread Dharma in my eyes but used Dharma for empire and ego building. Its a business. Now they want to even copyright it in a very unusual and strange manner:
      
      Up until last week I have been following the special teacher training programme (STTP). This started in May 2013. Last week I got an email from the Education Office from the NKT, requesting me to sign a legal agreement. This agreement stated among many similar things, that if I would ever write a book about buddhism, I would need the permission of the NKT, and they would also claim intellectual property to that book. Basically, they wanted to copyright buddhism, and they could block any publication from me about buddhism, upon their own discretion . A brief search on the internet showed me that there has been at least one guy (Nick Gillespie) who has tried to publish a book (on Buddhism and happiness) after signing this agreement. He got the threat of NKT’s laywers after him. As I might publish a book on Buddhism in the (quite far) future, I of course cannot sign this agreement. I will therefore stop my participation in the STTP.
      
      Also it is a common procedure in Buddhism to discuss and to object point of views in order to improve or to clarify understanding.
10

tenpel on December 15, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Reply

@Joanne:

Verse 88 teaches the rules for fully ordained which include how and when to teach the Dharma. So in a way (due to what ever reasons) the NKT/Gyatso/Elliot “translation” of Shantideva’s stanza 88 has just kicked out the Vinaya from Shantideva’s text.

I don’t know if this is an attempt to fit the great texts into the NKT universe (where there is no Vinaya but texts must be congruent with what they claim) or if this is out of ignorance or any other reason.

Your post might give some new work to the NKT smear/’truth’ website … Thank you for your work!
- 11
  
  Joanne on December 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes, that problem with Vinaya could be true of the errors in the text– except that GKG’s commentary favors the correct translation in about 90% of the cases– so if it is the case, he isn’t part of the plan! And some of the errors are just bizarre, with no relation to the original, as if the translators are simply making up their own text– or as if they are very accustomed to distrusting Tibetans generally and when they don’t like the Tibetan, they simply make up their own Bodhicharyavatara. The trouble is that I am checking these problems with Sanskrit translations as well and they still look bizarre! Tharpa really does have its hands full and the question I am wondering is whether they will simply ignore the troubles and go on as usual or whether they will address them?
  
  But also, to give some credit where credit is due, the majority of the text seems pretty well translated (and in a few cases, I personally preferred their poetic style)– it’s just that most of those mistakes– over 40 verses are flawed– are big mistakes.
12

Joanne on December 16, 2013 at 11:03 am
Reply

And it almost seems as if NKT is actually on a path in complete opposition to Tsongkhapa. Tsongkhapa treasured the monastic Vinaya and promoted extensive study and critical analysis of the Dharma– whereas the NKT has thrown out the monastic Vinaya and restricted study to a point where critical analysis and full understanding is impossible.
- 13
  
  tenpel on December 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm
  Reply
  
  exactly!
  NKT makes you a numb, totally closed follower, Tsongkhapa was an open seeker, who learned from the best of the best and questioned everything.
  
  He also didn’t do what his teachers said, when he felt their advice was wrong. For instance, one of his teachers recommended him to found a monastery (because Tsongkhapa was utter exceptional and a great scholar + monastic) when Tsongkhapa was at the age of around 22 or 24. However, Tsongkhapa felt, that he needs a connection to Manjushri and decided to go into retreat – instead of founding a monastery – with the shepherd Umapa and some others in order to get the vision/direct communication with Manjushri who became his guru! The monastery he founded in the last years of his life.
  
  The differences between NKT and Je Tsongkhapa are so vast, deep and huge that I am convinced that if Je Tsongkhapa showed up in any NKT centre they would kick him out, because, Tsongkhapa wouldn’t accept:
  – to study only books written by Kelsang
  – to not follow or totally ignore the Vinaya
  – to not seek other teachers, and listen to them and to spread their teachings too (e.g. Tsongkhapa received Kagyu Mahamudra and Sakya Lam Dre teachings and gave them in one session to his students)
  – he would debate and discuss topics but in NKT you are trained to become a parrot who repeats what “Geshe-la” said
  – etc etc
  
  In brief, NKT is spiritually dead (no openness, no deeply honest, distressing, inquiry), and a true seeker is very alive. Both cannot live well together.
  
  Tsongkhapa writes in one of his poems that he was “tormented by doubts”, in NKT, this would indicate only that he doesn’t have faith and is therefore “a poor guy” who needs more faith in Geshe-la.
  
  In NKT not even Je Tsongkhapa’s great poem, Praise of Dependent Arising, exists which Tsongkhapa wrote after he realized emptiness.
  - 14
    
    john6747 on December 18, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    Reply
    
    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    - 15
      
      tenpel on December 18, 2013 at 10:35 pm
      Reply
      
      good point. The NKT is close to Catholicism. There is only one god, one way, one truth.
16

Joanne on December 16, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Reply

Yes, that seems to be so true. And also, while we are extolling the amazing qualities of Tsongkhapa, my feelings when I read his works is that his approach is just so relevant, even today, even in the West. I find him very extraordinary in that regard, not old-fashioned or culture-bound at all. Not sure why there is this need in the NKT to “Westernize” his approach?
- 17
  
  tenpel on December 16, 2013 at 11:26 pm
  Reply
  
  He is extremely accurate, precise, clarifying, open … utter relevant if you ask me.
  
  I prefer Tsongkhapa’s Lam Rim from all other Lam Rim works. There is nothing better for me than his works.
  However, you can also learn a lot from other Lam Rim texts, e.g. Gampopa’s approach to start with Buddha Nature and not with the Teacher …
18

john6747 on December 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Reply

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=712209058808363&set=a.399938316702107.107615.100000578273974&type=1&theater
- 19
  
  TJ Versace on December 24, 2013 at 3:18 pm
  Reply
  
  These statues are noxious plastic, spray painted gold at the ‘Manjusri Kadampa Studio’ purpose built facility. Spreading this plastic kitsch art internationally is a central part of the cults expansion strategy.
  “Polyester resin is toxic and produces a terrible odour, so adequate space, ventilation and other safety measures are needed. The liquid resin mixture has a catalyst added to begin the hardening process. Commonly used catalysts include methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, which can be highly volatile, and the less-hazardous benzoyl peroxide. Toxic chlorinated solvents released can contaminate groundwater and degrade the atmosphere. Castings keep on stinking for months: indeed off-gassing will be an ongoing cause of indoor air quality degradation. In the finishing process dust from sanding poly resin can be toxic as well as the spray painting process. And of course there is the not insubstantial carbon cost to ship this religious kitsch abroad. NKT has clearly invested a lot of money in its purpose built studio building, the results of this quasi-industrial enterprise are dubious from a Buddhist point of view if it uses harmful toxic industrial methods.”
  - 20
    
    john6747 on December 24, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    Reply
    
    You aint seen nothing yet.
    
    http://www.catholicgiftshop.co.uk/luminous_virgin_mary_statues
  - 21
    
    Bob on November 19, 2015 at 3:07 pm
    Reply
    
    Hmmm… You have analyzed the chemical compunds of the resin statues and paint because casting in bronze or other metals releases no heavy metal poisons or toxic chemicals into the environment…right????. And you do not own one item made of plastics right??? And nobody buys a painted car these days right??? Its an image of Buddha no matter what its made of… Work in your mind and mental attitude- there are bigger environmental fish to fry
    - 22
      
      Brian on November 19, 2015 at 11:19 pm
      Reply
      
      The Bronze Age lasted around thirty centuries and was benign compared to our current “Plastic Kalpa.” We and countless marine animals are choking on it.
      
      Yours is a false argument, Bob: many wrongs don’t make a right. Besides, the occurrence of a buddha is extremely rare, the hippy sentiment ‘wow, buddhas are everywhere’ is not correct.
23

Kelsang Gyaltsen on December 20, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Reply

Again, dear Ones, Tenpel:

I am so very happy that one after the other relying upon Geshe Kelsang’s way of presenting the essence and still the totality of Buddha’s Instructions incredibly quickly follows the path of the Bodhisattvas, Yogis, Superior Bodhisattvas and Buddhas through the qualified guidance of the sublime good heart of that Guru/Yidam … to as well guiding those others discussing endlessly about the certainty of this path being the wrong one. When I see my Guru as a Buddha I am being granted all Buddha’s blessings; when I see my Guru as a Bodhisattva I am getting a Bodhisattva’s blessings; when I see my Guru as an ordinary being, then there are no blessings. It is your decision!

With love and compassion.
Gyaltsen
- 24
  
  tenpel on December 21, 2013 at 2:01 am
  Reply
  
  Mhm. These are some thoughts but they have to be checked and tested if they are reasonable and if they can stand with reality.
  Of course you can also just blindly believe what you learned in NKT but then you are a follower of blind faith, and this might work at times but it is also very dangerous because blind faith might rely on things that don’t have support in reality. Because of that, sooner of later, the belief system is going to collapse, because it lacks a support in reality and because it is fiction – and one might stand there empty handed and shattered in despair …
  
  What about this claim: “if I see Hitler as a Buddha I am being granted all Buddha’s blessings; when I see Hitler as a Bodhisattva I am getting a Bodhisattva’s blessings; when I see Hitler as an ordinary being, then there are no blessings. It is your decision!”
  
  Love and compassion are crucial but they are only one wing without wisdom. Only with wisdom and compassion you have both wings and you can fly …
  “It is your decision!”
  
  Your rebel monk.
- 25
  
  john6747 on December 21, 2013 at 10:08 am
  Reply
- 26
  
  john6747 on December 21, 2013 at 11:32 am
  Reply
  
  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/24/jesus-the-jewish-straw-man-worshipped-as-god/
  - 27
    
    john6747 on December 21, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    Reply
    
    You may wish consider this also … http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/jesus-and-the-intellectual/02-man-myth-god.htm
    Toward the end of this piece there is a statement with echoes of Kelsang Gyaltsen
- 28
  
  Joanne on December 27, 2013 at 9:06 pm
  Reply
  
  Dear Kelsang Gyaltsen
  So your message is: Don’t question? Just see me as a Buddha? Can one question a Buddha?
  Should Atisha have taken that advice and followed the Mind-Only School philosophy of Serlingpa? I’m confused. Is this truly your message? Just shut up and follow? How would Nagarjuna, Shantideva, and Tsongkhapa react to such advice being given at the expense of a full Dharma education, one that investigates and critically analyzes?
  
  Can one really reach Buddhahood through blind faith????
29

john6747 on December 21, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Reply

In answer to the question, ‘According to the Jehova’s Witnesses, only 144.000 will go to heaven. Is this true?’
This was the reply….

.’..Our understanding of the Bible that 144,000 are the ones who will be given heavenly life…..not just “saved” because there are two “forms” that salvation takes according to the scriptures.

Jesus Christ spoke of his being the shepherd over two groups of people. One group is called by him the “little flock”, and the second group is the “other sheep”. The “little flock” is appropriately named because they would be a much smaller group in relation to the “other sheep”. In the Bible book of Revelation, chapter 7 and chapter 14, this smaller group is listed by the literal number of 144,000. In fact, in Revelation chapter 14, it describes this group as having been “bought from the earth”, or from mankind to serve as kings and priests in the heavenly kingdom. The “other sheep” that Jesus spoke of, on the other hand, would have another hope for salvation, and that hope would be to live on the earth forever in paradise and in the state of perfection Adam and Eve once had. Psalms 37 states that the righteous and meek will inherit the earth and enjoy it forever. This harmonizes with God’s original purpose for man and the earth when He created them. If one reads through the creation account in the book of Genesis, they would never read about God arranging for man to be on earth a short while only to be taken to heaven later. The earth was always meant to be man’s permanent home. It was only much later in time that an allowance was made for a small group of humans to inherit life in heaven.

That small group of 144,000 will rule alongside Jesus Christ in heaven over the much larger group of faithful humans who have salvation on the earth.

Steinbeck is completely misinformed and her explanation isn’t reasonable. It also fails to take into consideration that phrases such as “before the throne” does NOT necessarily have to refer to someone being exactly in front of another in that same location. Standing “before” someone can also mean “in the sight of”. During the days of the nation of Israel they would gather together before Jehovah……not being taken to heaven to be instructed by him, but being together in his sight. Similarly, because the “great crowd” of Revelation is the group with an earthly hope for their salvation, their standing “before the throne” indicates their being gathered in the sight of God…….NOT physically located in heaven in front of him.

Only by Grace is also sadly misinformed. We do NOT believe that ONLY 144,000 will be saved, as I have already explained. For whatever reason, those trapped in false religion have it stuck in their heads that “saved” or “salvation” has to automatically refer to going to heaven. That simply is not the case.’
30

john6747 on December 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Reply

http://www.academia.edu/207076/CONTRIBUTING_FACTORS_FOR_THE_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_BUDDHISM_FROM_INDIA
31

john6747 on January 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Reply

How Superstition Shaped History
This is how the Dorje Shugden site introduces the following statement.
‘In the West, the Dalai Lama likes to present himself as a modern thinker, inclined to reason and scientific methods, but in reality the Dalai Lama has for a long time relied on dubious and superstitious methods for making important decisions’
Superstitious methods ?
A discussion related to this can be found on this site under the following heading.

‘NKT Chaplaincy, NKT Business & NKT Research’

I recently saw this advertised…
‘We all want good fortune and a long healthy life – boost your chances with this one day Buddha Amitayus retreat this Saturday – long-life pills and nectar will be distributed……. preparations in progress.’ There were some photos showing long life pills being made by members of the centre.

As the advert came from an NKT centre I first looked at the NKT website and found…
‘The purpose of the NKT-IKBU is to preserve and promote the essence of Buddha’s teachings in a form that is suited to the modern world and way of life.’

Also, the above centre’s facebook entry runs as follows…

‘The mystery of the burning candle…..the candle in front of Buddha Shakyamuni burnt throughout PWP but did not burn down…’

Long life pills. Nectar. Candles that do not burn down in the presence of a statue… Suitable for the modern world?
http://xuanfa.net/buddha-dharma/holy-vajra-pills/
http://www.tharlam-dronme.org/sacred-pills
I suppose they may be suitable for the modern world as people are still prepared to rely on rabbit’s feet, throwing salt over their shoulders and in some places reading the entrails of a dead chicken slaughtered at midnight to determine a course of action.

So there is an audience out there that will be attracted to this type of promise.
Blessings is another area I thought worthy of research as the topic was raised by Kelsang Gyaltsen in December…

‘Again, dear Ones, Tenpel:
I am so very happy that one after the other relying upon Geshe Kelsang’s way of presenting the essence and still the totality of Buddha’s Instructions incredibly quickly follows the path of the Bodhisattvas, Yogis, Superior Bodhisattvas and Buddhas through the qualified guidance of the sublime good heart of that Guru/Yidam … to as well guiding those others discussing endlessly about the certainty of this path being the wrong one. When I see my Guru as a Buddha I am being granted all Buddha’s blessings; when I see my Guru as a Bodhisattva I am getting a Bodhisattva’s blessings; when I see my Guru as an ordinary being, then there are no blessings. It is your decision!
With love and compassion.
Gyaltsen’

What is a Buddha’s blessing, what does it mean to receive blessings?
For this I looked at material from different faiths.
A blessing seems to be something bestowed by one to another. The views I have read mainly view a blessing as something from God or an appointed person, through whom, God’s blessings are transmitted.
The Buddhist view differs in that there is no supreme being, It is the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and deities that are involved in this process.
So if I were to meditate on compassion, I would think of Avalokiteshvara and all the qualities associated with this deity. The action of doing this hopefully will lead me to alter my mind in some way so that I am more inclined to act with compassion when the need arises.
The difference here between blessings coming from a God figure and the benefits gained through meditation on a deity being that the changes on the one hand are made by God and on the other by me.

The following is from a question and answer session after a talk by the Dalai Lama found in his book Transforming the Mind. It refers to an explanation he found useful from the Sakya teachings in the Lam dre tradition of Path and Fruition.

Question. ‘What type of meditation would your Holiness suggest for beginners?

HHDL. ‘Reflect on impermanence and if you have some wider knowledge then reflect on the nature of suffering. You could also contemplate the nature of cessation. Actually, contemplating on the Four Noble Truths is the foundation of Buddha Dharma, so begin by reflecting along these lines rather than visualizing yourself as a deity! Mantras only keep our lips busy; for a beginner, I think there is a certain limitation to mantra practice. A master from Amdo, in eastern Tibet, once said that when you recite mantras too much, while plying your rosary beads, instead of diminishing your negative emotions it might only serve to diminish your nails!

In Kelsang Gyaltsen’s piece, blessings are seen as conditional. This is also a feature of other religions.
The following is also conditional…
‘Jesus promised, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
‘ Although the Holy Ghost may temporarily comfort someone or reveal truth to them, the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who have been baptized and confirmed into Christ’s Church. This gift is the privilege of enjoying the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost conditional upon keeping the commandments.
The gift of the Holy Ghost is given when a person is confirmed a member of the Church after baptism by someone having priesthood authority from God. It is given by the person having authority laying their hands upon the head of the person who was baptized and giving them a blessing to receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:14-18). Whether or not we then receive this great gift depends on our keeping the commandments of God’..
I may be wrong but feel many westerners see blessings as bestowed rather than describing a ‘virtuous’ state of mind gained through effort.

Also to be found in the book Transforming the Mind, is this comment by the Dalai Lama

‘According to this, there are four valid factors of knowledge, namely valid scripture, valid treatises or commentaries, valid teacher and valid experience.
In terms of their origin, of course, the valid scriptures were taught first and the valid commentaries were elaborated on them later. Then, on the strength of their study, Valid teachers emerged who became masters of those commentaries. This led to their having valid experiences. However, from the point of view of one’s own personal conviction it is suggested that this order is reversed-in other words, one must begin with some kind of personal experience. If we take the case of reflecting on the Four Seals, or the empty nature of phenomena, or the benefits of altruism, unless we have some taste or personal experience of the theme, that is, unless we have a glimpse of its truth, it is less likely that we will be inspired deeply enough to persist in our practice’
http://news.yahoo.com/polish-catholics-see-miracle-communion-wafer-164609894.html
http://www.loamagazine.org/nr/the_main_topic/eucharistic_miracle_in_buenos.html
http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Eucharistic_miracles.htm
- 32
  
  tenpel on January 5, 2014 at 10:22 am
  Reply
  
  Hi John,
  the Shudgen activists have tried to portray the Dalai Lama as backwards and themselves as modern. Some journalists who have no clue about Tibetan history like Gerald Lehner have fallen pray to their propaganda and lacking insight in Tibetan history and life even journalists have naively spread this in then news. It have been the Shugden people who were closely associated with the Tibetan aristocracy and the Shugden people were it who undermined and later even turned back the reforms of the 13th Dalai Lama. Neither Shugden activists nor journalists like Lehner asked themselves how much backward their anti-modernism was and how backward it is to revere a vengeful spirit that is seen as the rebirth of a violently deceased person as a “Wisdom Buddha” making it central to their belief system … Connections between power struggle associated with clans and their local protectors they did not even take into consideration. It is for me somewhat natural that the claims of Shugden activists are a pot of contradictions because they are just constructed to justify their claims, and they ignore history and facts …
  
  With respect to blessings: In Buddhism a blessing is seen a dependent arising. It is mainly described as a transforming of the mind from a negative/neutral to a very positive state. A blessing can arise due to outer factors such as an inspiring word / line / text / person and the inner condition of being receptive / open. Trantra practice includes to bless oneself. I suppose it is also possible to “receive” a blessing only due to inner factors in one’s own mind stream but I am not so sure about this. However, for tantric blessings one needs tantric powers. The result of a blessing is mainly an deeply inspired state of mind.
33

john6747 on January 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Reply

From the Daily Telegraph last week.

The Rev. Prof. Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College London, said that the film, Life of Brian, depicting a ‘faction ridden messianic movement in 1st century Judea was probably a more historically accurate portrayal of the setting than many Hollywood films about Jesus’.
He also said that those ‘Christians who called for the satire to be banned were ’embarrassingly’ ill informed and missed a major opportunity to promote the Christian message.’

Sounds familiar.
34

A Student on January 11, 2014 at 3:29 am
Reply

Joanne, I found your post to be intelligent and the only useful critique of the New Kadampa Tradition I’ve read. Yes, there could probably be more quotations from root texts in the books used in study groups, though there are more root texts than you suggest — Ocean of Nectar, for instance, has the entirety of Chandrakirti’s Guide to the Middle Way, which it is a commentary on, in the appendix. And perhaps there are some subtleties lost, sometimes, in a commentary on such rich texts. But it seems to me you misunderstand the intention behind this approach. (This is merely a student’s view, and I speak only for myself: I am not a teacher or a staff member of any Kadampa Center.)

On page 518 of Joyful Path of Good Fortune Geshe Kelsang Gyatso suggests that “if possible we should study Nagarjuna’s “Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way” and Chandrakirti’s “Guide to the Middle Way,” together with their commentaries, especially the commentaries by Je Tsongkhapa….The texts by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti are like doors that open the meaning of the “Perfection of Wisdom Sutras,” and Je Tsongkhapa’s texts are like keys to those doors. However if we cannot study so extensively we should study and practice according to the following Lamrin instructions….”

Geshe Kelsang, in other words, while suggesting that a multiplicity of root materials is deeply beneficial, is also explicitly trying to reach those many people like myself who haven’t read these root texts and who don’t have the time or perhaps the ambition to tackle them currently on their own, and would not have encountered them at all except through his commentaries. Perhaps we ARE getting our material a little “predigested,” but isn’t that better than never receiving or understanding these works at all?

Though I am a relative newcomer to the New Kadampa Tradition, I’ve found much of what is written about the NKT to have no relation to my experience in the classes I’ve attended. The students I know at the Center DO read other Buddhists outside this tradition on occasion, listen to other teachers, and talk about them socially with each other. The principal teacher is ready to be questioned about anything, admits when he doesn’t know the answer to something, and does not in any way seek blind adherence. I’m not sure, in any case, what it means to have blind adherence to any teacher who is simply asking students to attempt to understand complex texts and concepts like emptiness and enlightenment. No organization is perfect, despite good intentions and the wisdom of its master teachers, and new traditions perhaps especially need some time to work out issues that arise inside and outside the organization. But I am mystified as to why a tradition of bringing the Dharma to large numbers of people previously unacquainted with it in any deep way, and inspiring them to practice it as seriously as they are able, is considered anything but a success story in the Buddhist world.
- 35
  
  andydurling on January 11, 2014 at 9:27 am
  Reply
  
  You make a fair point about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso encouarging students to study original works of people like Tsongkhapa if they are able to, and that is something I have done whilst I was still in the NKT. And there is sometimes much informal talk amongst NKT students about other Buddhist texts and traditions, although my experience within the NKT in recent years was that you had to be extremely careful about who you talked to as any rumours that you might be influenced in any way by other Buddhist texts and traditions could earn you a black mark and give you the reputation of being an ‘impure’ teacher, even if you stuck entirely to the NKT line when actually teaching. I say that as a former NKT teacher myself and having seen at first hand a NKT monk dismissed as a teacher unfairly, and branded as ‘impure’, despite being totally loyal to the NKT and always teaching strictly according to what Geshe Kelsang wrote in his books; rumours and lies from jealous, resentful NKT practitioners had ruined this monk’s public reputation and the NKT head office had no interest in finding out the truth of the matter. Indeed, the monk concerned did not even have the chance to address the accusations against him formally. This is a classic illustration of what happened to Mahasiddha Biwawa, whom Geshe Kelsang himself writes about in his book, Heart Jewel. The Gelug -and the NKT is a Gelug lineage, or tries to be – is no stranger historically to ‘witch-hunts’ and pursuit of ‘heretics’ (just look at what happened to Gendun Choepel). There was a growing fundamentalist pressure within the NKT in recent years that made many people fearful and anxious about being perceived as anything less than 100% ‘pure’, no doubt fuelled by the many sexual and financial scandals that have occurred within the NKT hierarchy, none of which were dealt with in a transparent and accountable way. As for the NKT spreading the Dharma, this is admirable up to a point (and perhaps especially beneficial for complete newcomers to the Tibetan Buddhist presentation of the Dharma), but becomes totally retrograde if the Dharma is then taught in a fundamentalist way when Geshe Kelsang’s teachings are looked at in depth. Try bringing a critical, open mind to a Foundation Programme course and see where that gets you! In many cases you soon learn not to talk about any real doubts or concerns you may have, and indeed at the centre nearest to me I am now told by NKT practitioners there that the conclusion of any discussion on the set text is announced by the Foundation Programme teacher BEFORE the discussion period and students are told to only arrive at that conclusion and not to diverge from it! That’s not Dharma, that’s just indoctrination into the core beliefs of the NKT! Since I left the NKT, I have enjoyed the benefit of having Dharma discussions with others in an atmosphere of total freedom and trust and it’s so liberating not having to worry about my purity/impurity status. As a result, my spiritual practice is so much better, and my level of happiness and inner peace so much higher, than it ever was in the 20 years I tried so hard to be a faithful NKT student! I’m pleased for you that you feel that you are gaining great benefit from NKT Dharma, but please don’t be surprised that the rest of the Buddhist world may be less than impressed with the current NKT way of spreading Dharma!
  - 36
    
    tenpel on January 12, 2014 at 7:25 am
    Reply
    
    Thank you Andy.
    
    At my times in NKT we had the same purity issue in the way that a “pure” NKT teacher shows his “deep faith in Geshe-la” by only reading his books. To read other books was seen as a lack of faith because “Geshe-la’s books contain all you need for enlightenment”. When a Foundation Program teacher recommended a non-NKT root text of Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara she was removed from being a FP teacher by Geshe-la and she was replaced 1 week later by another NKT teacher. Observers will learn from it that it is dangerous to recommend non-NKT books. And of course, Geshe-la had no problem to say in public that people can read other teacher’s book some months later during a festival. There is an amount of duplicity and unspoken rules newcomers can rarely comprehend …
37

john6747 on January 12, 2014 at 10:14 am
Reply

Dear Student

I agree, there are references to root texts in the books and the reader is guided toward them if he or she is intent on deeper study.
I may also agree with the intention to make the teachings available to many who would not receive them if they remained in their original form. It is said that Buddha taught according to the capabilities of the audience, so to make the teachings available for, as you say…

… ‘those many people like myself who haven’t read these root texts and who don’t have the time or perhaps the ambition to tackle them currently on their own, and would not have encountered them at all except through his commentaries’.

I am not suggesting anything here about your capabilities to understand at a deeper level.

I do not question the content of the books written by Kelsang Gyatso as I am not qualified.

What I do find is an organisation with two faces.

The following letter appeared on an Admin mailing list after a number of high profile teachers had behaved inappropriately.

Rule 12;

For the purity of Kadampa Buddhism, the Administrative Director and the EPC of each NKT-IKBU Dharma Centre, together with the Secretary of the NKT-IKBU, shall have the responsibility to help prevent the Centre’s Resident Teacher from damaging or breaking his or her ordination or Pratimoksha vows. They should do this by preventing any conditions that may lead to such damage. The Secretary of the NKT-IKBU shall have the responsibility to check if this rule is being applied effectively or not in each Centre. The members of the Education Council and the Board of Directors of each Centre should also continually help to maintain the effectiveness of the rule. This rule shall be effective from 01December 2007….

Signed Steve Cowing & Roy Tyson.

The current wording of the rule is as follows…
12§2. To help ensure the purity of the New Kadampa Tradition, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary shall act as the NKT-IKBU ‘moral discipline guides’, on behalf of the members of the Education Council.
12§3. As the moral discipline guides, the Education Council Representatives shall concentrate on the following three steps:
(a) becoming aware of any breach of moral discipline or of these Internal Rules which has occurred, principally regarding (i) Dharma Centres, (ii) ordained Sangha, (iii) Resident Teachers and (iv) practitioners living in NKT-IKBU Dharma Centres. When any such problem is recognised, the Education Council Representatives should:
(b) ask and encourage the Dharma Centre or individuals involved to stop their inappropriate behaviour. If they do not agree to change their behaviour accordingly:
(c) report the problem to the GSD, and then implement any practical solution that the GSD and Education Council Representatives may together require.
The latest version of the rule is of a different tone to the first.
Andrew Durling in the post above illustrates this rule stands for nothing.
…..’and having seen at first hand a NKT monk dismissed as a teacher unfairly, and branded as ‘impure’, despite being totally loyal to the NKT and always teaching strictly according to what Geshe Kelsang wrote in his books; rumours and lies from jealous, resentful NKT practitioners had ruined this monk’s public reputation and the NKT head office had no interest in finding out the truth of the matter. Indeed, the monk concerned did not even have the chance to address the accusations against him formally.’
The monk mentioned by Andrew Durling appears not to have been granted the ‘luxury’ of the above process.
The Highden Manor issue, the closure of the Losang Dragpa Centre and the take over of the Maitreya Centre, are well documented on this site and are, to my mind, examples of the two faces of the NKT-IKBU.
http://www.newkadampatruths.org/?p=254
http://maitreyabuddhistcentre.wordpress.com/news/
https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/?s=losang+dragpa
38

concerned_and_confused on January 13, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Reply

From Andy’s comment above:

“Try bringing a critical, open mind to a Foundation Programme course and see where that gets you! In many cases you soon learn not to talk about any real doubts or concerns you may have…”

Andy and others:
Unfortunately for me, the above statement is 100% true. I have been in the FP class for over 2 years now. I have started feeling now that the FP program is not contributing to my spiritual development.
I have to make a decision on this soon – either quit the program or accept it and stay. Thanks for
listening to a confused student.
- 39
  
  john6747 on January 14, 2014 at 10:06 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Concerned and confused.
  
  There are many ways to receive dharma teachings.
  As far as your decision about staying and going, it will depend upon some questions.
  After two years of FP, what is causing you to have doubts?
  Were your expectations as far as spiritual development realistic for just two years of study?
  Were you happy with FP before you read this blog?
  Is the format of the sessions to your liking?
  Will you miss your group?
  Are you a resident of a dharma centre? If so there will be decisions made about where you will live.
  
  The decision to leave my dharma centre was made for me. They said I was upsetting the community.
  The centre was closed on the orders of Kelsang Gyatso as he considered it impure. That bit is another story which is well documented.
  I had, for some time, found the format of FP, unsatisfactory. The teacher was pleasant as were the members of the course. I had reservations about the recitation of the Dorje Shugden Sadhana as there were unanswered questions about the conflict related to the practice. Again, this is well documented elsewhere.
  The discussion sessions were little more than rote learning. The intended learning outcome was that you accepted everything as given.
  
  Taken from Transforming the Mind. HHDL.
  
  ‘Generally, as far as the presentation and understanding of the method aspect are concerned there are no substantial differences between the schools, although there can be differences in emphasis with respect to particular practices. But as far as the wisdom aspect is concerned, there are real differences between the schools and between the various scriptural texts….’ Also, ‘…..schools state that there are scriptures that can be taken at there literal face value, and those which cannot be accepted as literal but which require further interpretation. On what grounds can we determine whether a scripture is of literal or non-literal meaning? If we were to rely on another scripture to make this distinction, this would simply raise a further question: on what grounds could we take the adjudicating scripture itself at face value? This would lead to infinite regress. What this suggests is that, in the final analysis, one can only rely on one’s own understanding, experience and reasoning.’
40

Patrick on January 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Reply

Hi. I’d like to make a few points. First, the paragraph which starts ‘On the other hand, Tsongkhapa acknowledges that lamas will have faults…’.

In the book ‘The Union Of Bliss And Emptiness’ the Daliai Lama wrote on p120 ‘You can conclude that the faults you see in your spiritual master are your projection’. Is this a correct teaching in line with Je Tsongkhapa?

Also, on the FPMT website it says (http://www.lamayeshe.com/?sect=article&id=340) –

The other thing is this. You should remember what Drogön Tsangpa Gyare (see Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, p. 262) said: If the guru beats you, it is an initiation. “Dung dak chung wa wang po yin”: If the guru scolds, you, it’s a wrathful mantra pacifying the obstacles to practicing the Dharma or to enlightenment. You see, when there are obstacles in life, normally people recite wrathful mantras for pacification, and perform wrathful pujas. It is the same if the guru scolds you. This is the wrathful mantra pacifying the obstacles to achieving enlightenment. Also, if there are obstacles that need to be eliminated, the scolding eliminates them. Think that your teacher is showing this aspect purposefully to purify your mind, to guide you and bring you to enlightenment.

Then, lastly, one can think: Sometimes the guru is so happy with you, but externally shows the aspect of being unhappy, beats you, scolds you, but also sometimes shows the external aspect of being happy, but inside is not happy. So, you can think like that. Thank you very much.

Is this teaching in line with Je Tsongkhapas teachings?

Thanks

Patrick
- 41
  
  john6747 on January 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm
  Reply
  
  In the translation of Lam Rim Chen Mo, there is reference to The Sutra on the Concentration Which Perceives the Buddha of the Present Face to Face. It states:
  
  ‘Students who rely properly on the teacher should always give up their self-assertiveness and instead act in accordance with will of the teacher.’
  
  The translators go on to say,
  
  ‘This refers to a fully qualified teacher,’ as described by Tsongkhapa, ‘and you should not let just anyone lead you round by the nose.’
  
  So I would venture to guess that discernment is necessary when choosing a guru.
  
  Does the prospective guru tick all the boxes?
  
  If so, then go for it and rely upon their wisdom. However, religion generally is littered with tales of the guru or whatever becoming a ‘renegade’. Is this because we were mistaken in the first place or has the guru become ‘faulty’?
  
  You state….
  
  ‘….The other thing is this. You should remember what Drogön Tsangpa Gyare (see Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, p. 262) said: If the guru beats you, it is an initiation. “Dung dak chung wa wang po yin”: If the guru scolds, you, it’s a wrathful mantra pacifying the obstacles to practicing the Dharma or to enlightenment.’
  
  If this were to happen to you, would it be acceptable in today’s climate for your guru to act in this way?
  
  To beat a student would be considered to be abuse and unskillful on the part of the guru.
- 42
  
  tenpel on January 14, 2014 at 9:08 pm
  Reply
  
  Dear Patrick,
  in my opinion, what you try to do is you quote one sentence out of the context of its (complex) training and application like ‘You can conclude that the faults you see in your spiritual master are your projection’, and then you look for another statement which supports the understanding expressed in that sentence without seeing the whole thing.
  
  ‘You can conclude that the faults you see in your spiritual master are your projection’ does not suggest that the lama doesn’t have faults nor that teachers cannot have faults. It is an advice in a certain aspect of practice and training but not an advice that has to be applied in all ways in all circumstances and at all levels of practice. You try to establish this sentence as a fundamental truth that is always true, hence what opposes such a remark must be wrong. If what opposes such a sentence must be wrong then it follows, Je Tsongkhapa himself is wrong because Tsongkhapa says for instance:
  
  Furthermore, you will consider the faults of the one who explains the teachings to be good qualities.
  
  Does Je Tsongkhapa say in this sentence that a teacher can have faults or does he say that a teacher never has faults? Are the Dalai Lama and Lama Yeshe contradicting Je Tsongkhapa or are they in line with his teachings? Is Je Tsongkhapa in line with his own teachings?
  
  NKT followers, sadly, only learn a very narrow minded, black and white approach to the Dharma. This approach will lead one towards to been stuck in sentences and phrases without understanding their complex meanings and fine discriminations. The result will be a fundamentalist approach to the Dharma that is not Dharma because one clings onto truths and is fearful about other explanations that seem to contradict those “truths”.
  
  Wishing you all the best, tenpel
- 43
  
  Joanne on January 15, 2014 at 9:31 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you, Patrick, this is such an important point for Westerners. Tenpel really gave a wonderful reply to your points– so I will just add a few observations. Yes, in certain contexts HHDL will speak of seeing the lama as a Buddha and seeing his faults as our own faulty perception. In fact, Tsonkhappa also teaches this. However, HHDL also speaks at length about the dangers of these instructions and he will frequently warn students about investigating lamas thoroughly before committing to them. And Tsonkhappa also teaches about what to do if a lama has faults and teaches wrongly.
  
  And that is my point. Following a lama, like so many other Buddhist practices, is not one-dimensional or black and white. I am concerned that GKG only portrays the one side of guru devotion and makes no mention at all about the possibility of lamas having faults. This was my point. I was not denigrating the practice of seeing the lama as a perfect Buddha, which definitely has its place in Buddhist practice, particularly in Lamrim and tantra.
44

concerned_and_confused on January 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Reply

Thank you John for your questions. Here are my answers:

After two years of FP, what is causing you to have doubts?

I began having some questions about the general structure and format of the FP class a few months ago – This was when we started a new book. There were some guidelines given as to what the students should discuss. Those guidelines suggested strict adherence to the material in the text. I found it to be a bit too restrictive. In a class , at times I have made seemingly sensible comments (at least they seem sensible to me ) and I have noticed my teacher’s expression change – As an example: I read this from a different Guru’s website – “Non injury is the highest virtue, Speak a little, Speak the Truth at all cost. Do not condemn or criticize. Do not shout at children” – I interpreted this to be a good message on discipline of speech and shared this in one of the question and answer sessions. Judging by how my teacher’s expression changed, I recognized that these statements were not encouraged. The other aspect which is stressed upon is mixing different traditions causes a lot of confusion – (I am of a different eastern faith and I have not found this statement to be true). Even if there is some confusion, I am of the belief that clarity emerges in meditation. But somehow I did not have the courage to put my thoughts into words in the class. It is not about being right or wrong – but to be not able to speak out has been very disconcerting. I think if there was some freedom to articulate our thoughts , it would aid my spiritual development even further.

Were your expectations as far as spiritual development realistic for just two years of study?

The primary motivation for me to practice spirituality was to exercise discipline of speech – I have not used it wisely at times with my family and it has caused great pain to my parents, my wife and kids. I can honestly say that practicing the teachings have made a great impact on my personal life. Many of my actions at home and outside have been with a view to benefit others. My expectations were to clear the roadblocks(my selfishness and its derivatives) that were causing pain to my family and for most part I have seen big changes in the past two years. After having got here, I think that I should still continue the practice but am unsure if the FP program is the right one for me.

Were you happy with FP before you read this blog?
This blog did not contribute in any way to my confusion. I had this confusion before and reading this blog just confirmed that a few others have experienced similar things. In fact the statement by Andy about bringing different ideas to the FP program and learning soon to not raise some questions struck a chord with me and hence my original comment.

Is the format of the sessions to your liking?
If my feedback was solicited, I’d ask for more time on discussion and a relaxation of the guidelines regarding what we should or should not talk about. I’d appreciate some more discussion on what we might have learned from other sources and (if they appear to be contradictory) an open and honest discussion on those issues.

Will you miss your group?
I regard them as dear friends. So not meeting and talking with them every week may be an issue – But we all live in the same city and mostly in the same neighborhood – so I am sure we will run into each other.

Are you a resident of a dharma centre?
No – I work full time and go to the center on Sundays.
- 45
  
  john6747 on January 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi Concerned and Confused
  Thank you for your reply.
  On the basis that the presentation within FP will always be of one nature within the NKT, then if you were to continue it would be you who would have to change. The texts you have studied are broadly the same as you would find in other classes based on the Gelug tradition. You are fortunate that your involvement is restricted to a Sunday class and are free to go elsewhere if the classes no longer suit you. There have been many who found their whole life was involvement with the NKT and had much to lose if they left. A place to live and friendship groups being just two.
  If you do leave then it is not the end of your development spiritually, it may just leave you in a more comfortable place.
  - 46
    
    concerned_and_confused on January 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you John. My prayers are with all those who have had an unpleasant experience. My own confusion/difficulty seems to be of a much lesser magnitude compared to what others have gone through. I’d like to thank you sincerely for lending a ear to my issue. Your answers have provided some clarity regarding my future course of action. Thank you once again.
    - 47
      
      john6747 on January 15, 2014 at 5:36 pm
      Reply
      
      Thank you. Hope all goes well.
      - 48
        
        Joanne on January 15, 2014 at 9:21 pm
        Reply
        
        And concerned_and_confused, remember that Tsonkhapa himself had many teachers– and so did Atisha. Very few practitioners have only one major teacher. So, there is nothing in any Buddhist scripture that would discourage you from simply seeking other teachers and other Buddhist communities and other teaching lineages. You don’t even have to make excuses. You could even explore some Kagyu or Nyingma teachings. If you’ve made commitments, you could keep those commitments– but I don’t believe that any teacher can stop a student from exploring and searching and questioning and digging. And as John says, you are very lucky that you haven’t burnt any bridges. (At least that’s my opinion, one who wishes she had been more sensible early on)
49

Joanne on January 15, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Reply

I am very interested in how GKG can encourage students to study widely and especially the root texts, but yet there are no root texts available in the Tharpa bookstores– or even the NKT centers? Is this what people mean when they speak of the “two faces” of NKT?

I know that an important part of my early Buddhist development was the wonderful bookstore at my monastery. I used to just browse the titles, feel them, read the covers, look at the pictures etc. It gave me an essential early view of the vastness of the Buddhist canon. It seems that if NKT were serious about students studying widely, they would have the books available– they would have them in sight, sitting side by side with GKG’s books.
50

Joanne on January 15, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Reply

For example, I have four major texts by GKG that I am looking at. One has no bibliography at all. The bibliography of the other three has only books published by Tharpa! There is no scholar in secular or religious academia who could get away with such a closed approach! (Citing oneself!)

For example, in Volume One alone of the English translation of Lamrim Chenmo (by Tsonkhappa), the bibliography contains 13 pages of small print, including many many texts from the Kangyur and Tengyur and Tibetan commentators. This is the essence of Tsonkhappa’s tradition.

And while I agree that GKG makes it easy for Westerners with his simplified, abbreviated approach, in the long run, because of the huge risk for being lead astray, then I believe that students are at risk for being delayed on their spiritual paths. In the long run, there is no cheapest, easiest and quickest way to enlightenment.
- 51
  
  john6747 on January 16, 2014 at 9:13 am
  Reply
  
  I have a number of Kelsang Gyatso’s books, all pre 2001. Meaningful to Behold published in 1989 has a bibliography containing 47 references to other authors.
  Andy Weber did the line illustrations!
  Universal Compassion 1988 has 13 references and Heart of Wisdom 1989 has 6.
  The cut off point roughly appears to coincide with the birth of NKT-IKBU in 1992.
52

Patrick on January 22, 2014 at 11:57 am
Reply

Hi.
Thanks for printing my comment and taking the time to answer, much appreciated. I just want to go over some other points in the article.

It says – ‘For my purposes here, I will be using the term “purity” to refer to a meaning of authenticity or correctness…’
This isn’t actually what the term ‘pure dharma’ means when used in the NKT. In ‘Joyful Path of Good Fortune’ it says ‘The Dharma is pure if it reveals the entire path that leads to Enlightenment, presents each point unmistakenly, and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage form Buddha Shakyamuni. The Dharma that is explained here, the Lamrim, is pure because it possess these three necessary conditions.’ (p3)

It says – ‘In light of this, GKG’s claim that he alone, with no assistance from Gelug practitioners, scholars or translators outside of NKT, is capable of bringing a pure tradition of Tsongkhapa to the West is quite remarkable!’.
The NKT teach Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra according to the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche. Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra explain the complete path to enlightnement, and Trijang Rinpoche was the Gaden Tripa (head of Je Tsongkapas tradition). So it may be correct to say that the NKT teaches the complete path to enlightenment according to Je Tsongkapa’s tradition.

It says – For example, here is what is missing in the NKT study program from Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition:
there is no tradition of the Vinaya as practiced by Tsongkhapa (Vinaya constitutes the rules and commentaries for the ethics of monks and nuns)
there are no English translations of the 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa’s work in the NKT study program.
there are only two texts by Je Tsongkhapa himself in the NKT, the Three Principle of the Paths (two pages) and a lamrim prayer (one page)
there are none of the five Maitreya texts which form an important corpus in traditional Gelug study programs.
the study and practice of the combination of the three Highest Yoga Tantras, Guhyasamaja, Heruka and Yamantaka do not exist in NKT. These are central to the Gelug lineage and there is a good translation of Tsonkhapa’s commentary on Guhyasamaja available.

The vows taught in the NKT are Pratimoska, Bodhisattiva and Tantric vows. Ordaintion in the NKT is based on lamrim, the stages of the path to enlightenment, rather than the Vinaya.

All Buddha’s Sutra teachings are contained in Lamrim, so when you practice Lamrim you are also practising all Je Tsongkhapa’s and Maitreya’s Sutra teachings.

It explains in the book ‘Great Treasury of Merit’ how to get the blessings of Guhyasamaja, Heruka and Yamantaka whilst doing the ‘Offering to the Spiritual Guide’ practice. The NKT teaches the Heruka tantra, which explains the Tantric path to enlightenment.

Is it possible for a Buddhist teacher who is teaching now to give all the teaching of all their lineage guru’s going back to Buddha Shakyamuni? For example, could GKG give all the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche, Atisha, Je Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, etc? I think probably not, so a teacher teaching now has to choose some teachings to give and some to leave out. Also, could a tradition that’s teaches Buddhism in the modern world do things in exactly the same way as they have been done in Tibet for hundreds of years? I think there are some things which you definately couldn’t do (such as taking children at the age of 7 and ordaining them and putting them in a monastary), some things which you might not want to do (having men be seen as superior to women), and some things which would make teaching more difficult (teaching in Tibetan, having hours of discussion during the day, doing that hand clap thing with your mala when you make a point). So therefore I think that a Buddhist teacher teaching now in places like Europe and America has to do things differently to how they were done in Tibet. The issue here is how much change can you make and still be part of the same tradition, for example how much change can GKG make and his teachings and tradition still be called Je Tsongkapa’s traiditon? I think it’s very hard to say because it’s very rare in the history of Buddhism to have a teacher take Buddhism from one culture (Tibet) to a completely different one (England, and then the rest of the world), and so there is nothing to compare it to. Who else has tried this and we can look at and see what they have kept and what they haven’t, and so we can compare the NKT to?

Sorry about the spelling!

Cheers

Patrick
- 53
  
  tenpel on January 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi Patrick,
  thank you. You offer a lot of thoughts and points. Let’s see if all of them can be addressed by the commentators of this blog or me.
  For the time being I just take the very first point you mention and I strongly assume, how you set up your arguments and how I will address or refute them will be quite similar for most of the other points you address in your three comments. So maybe to take the first point and going through it, indirectly also answers other points in your comments or hints their logical fallacies.
  
  This isn’t actually what the term ‘pure dharma’ means when used in the NKT. In ‘Joyful Path of Good Fortune’ it says ‘The Dharma is pure if it reveals the entire path that leads to Enlightenment, presents each point unmistakenly, and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage form Buddha Shakyamuni. The Dharma that is explained here, the Lamrim, is pure because it possess these three necessary conditions.’ (p3)
  
  This is a definition of Kelsang Gyatso. From where did he take this definition? Is there any authentic scripture that supports this definition? Makes this definition sense, is it reasonable?
  
  As a follower of Tsongkhapa one should only accept teachings that are verified by scriptures such as Sutras or Shastras or authentic commentaries such as those by Nagarjuna/Asanga/Vasubandhu etc. and that do withstand analysis. Even the great Kadampa Chekhawa asked Sharawa to proof the validity of the Lojong teachings. Sharawa referred to Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland and Chekhawa studied this text for one year and came finally to the conclusion that the Lojong teachings about exchanging self with others are valid. Only after this evaluation process Chekhawa took the transmission and listened to the Lojong teachings by Sharawa.
  
  Je Tsongkhapa in his Lamrim follows his own demands for critically investigating the validity and meaning of teachings. When he makes a statement or gives an explanation in his Lam Rim Chen Mo for instance he immediately supports and verifies his own points with Sutra or Shastra quotes from authentic sources, and he offers a logical analysis to points that are not clear or have been misunderstood by others, again backing his position up with authentic sources and reasoning. What Sutras or Shastras and quotes from authentic masters (such as Nagarjuna or Asanga) respectively does KG use to support his claim about “pure Dharma”? None! Is it self-created? Highly likely. Is this definition contrary to the Dharma? It is. Is it therefore wrong? It is.
  
  Here my brief investigation to support my claim that what KG says is discordant to the scriptures and illogical (and highly likely self-created [non-sense]):
  
  Broadly speaking, dharma in Buddhist context is any teaching that is given to pacify the mind. (Can you agree with this? If not we can use the definition in the Uttara Tantra Shastra of Dharma.)
  
  Dharma includes for instance the teachings on impermanence. Does this Dharma of impermanence „reveal the entire path that leads to Enlightenment“? Does the Dharma of impermanence „present each point unmistakenly“? It does not. Is it therefore not Dharma? It is not so. (The Buddha gave his flesh in an earlier life as a Bodhisattva just to receive only this Dharma of impermanence …) Is it therefore not pure because this Dharma of impermanence does not reveal the entire path to enlightenment, and because it doesn’t present each point unmistakenly? It is not so. This Dharma of impermanence is not impure because Dharma is by nature pure (see Uttara Tantra Shastra, which I quoted already in another comment) and because this Dharma of impermanence is an opponent to the defilements and it does not increase the defilements (mind poisons/kleshas/delusions). But you and KG have to posit, according to KG’s own definition, this Dharma of impermanence as not being pure because it does not fulfill two points of this threefold definition; and the consequence is that you and KG have also to say that the Bodhisattva who became the Buddha of our age strove for impure Dharma when he offered his flesh to receive the Dharma of impermanence.
  
  So you can see, the definition of Kelsang Gyatso leads to a pot of contradictions and doesn’t withstand logical analysis. KG doesn’t offer any valid scriptural source for his definition and his definition contradicts with the scriptures (Uttara Tantra Shastra: “Dharma is by nature pure”) and it contradicts reasoning (as I have just pointed out) and therefore this definition is not to be accepted by any serious student of the Dharma. (Je Tsongkhapa said that if something contradicts the great scriptures and reasoning you should not accept it, he also says, that if your teacher says something contrary to the scriptures then it is better abandon this teacher’s statement than to abandon the meaning and teachings of the scripture! I can give you the exact quote if you wish so.)
  
  If you follow Tsongkhapa and common sense, as well as if you follow the Buddha, to critically investigate the teachings being given, you can see now very easily that Kelsang Gyatso is not reliable in some of his basic teachings like „purity“ (and as explained elsewhere already here on the blog, he is also not reliable in explaining „faith“ properly.) Both teachings „purity“ and „faith“ are of paramount importance in NKT but both teachings by Kelsang Gyatso are misleading, contradictory, not well explained or even wrong.
  
  That the Dharma is pure by nature you find in the Uttara Tantra Shastra where there is the definition of the Three Jewels and their nature. This text is neither studied nor existent in NKT, therefore you cannot check KG’s claims and as long as you circle in NKT’s totally self-referential material with all its traps you are caught in KG’s mental entanglements that make up such definitions as “pure Dharma” and “faith” according to his needs/ideas, definitions that are not accurate and even wrong, misleading etc.
  
  Now if NKT don’t follow the great scriptures as Je Tsongkhapa recommended they should at least follow the Kadampas in what they say because NKT claims to follow them. Here is their advice (and please note: they do not speak of pure and impure Dharma but Dharma and non-Dharma!):
  
  »What is the difference between Dharma and non-Dharma?« the teacher Drom[tönpa] was asked by Potowa.
  
  »If something is in opposition to fettering passions, it is Dharma. If it is not, it is not Dharma. If it does not accord with worldly people, it is Dharma. If it does accord, it is not Dharma. If it accords with the teachings of Buddha, it is Dharma. If it does not accord, it is not Dharma. If good follows, it is Dharma. If bad follows, it is not Dharma.«
  
  Tsunba Jegom, Precepts Collected from Here and There (Kadam Thorbu)
  
  There is another problem with KG’s definition. The problem is: how can you prove that his lamrim presentation fulfills the criteria he set up himself:
  1) reveals the entire path that leads to Enlightenment,
  2) presents each point unmistakenly,
  3) and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage form Buddha Shakyamuni?
  
  You cannot really prove this except you have attained enlightenment through those teachings. So it is a mere unverified blind belief on your side to believe KG’s claim that his lamrim teachings would fulfill those three criteria. So you are a follower of blind faith!
  
  More over, KG’s Lamrim presentation leaves out for instance the extremely important teaching of the qualification of the student who must be able to discriminate Dharma from non-Dharma (again, please note, there is nothing about pure Dharma!), and that he must not be partisan because otherwise the student will see faults of the teacher as qualities and qualities as faults. The term non-partisan I never ever heard in NKT nor was any such description! So KG’s lamrim is not complete. More over, he leaves out teachings what had “been handed down in an unbroken lineage form Buddha Shakyamuni” like the Vinaya teachings that explain the rules and livelihood of a monastic. There are other points as his explanation of “faith” that he explains mistakenly hence his text doesn’t fulfill his own criteria nor is his definition reasonable nor according to the scripture.
  
  In short, forget and don’t accept this definition its misleading, wrong, illogical and not backed up by any scripture.
  
  Sorry for being that frank though it might hurt a NKT follower’s heart. But this blog is not meant to have cosy discussions that continue or support the NKT’s attitude/strategy of fuzziness and working with a mixture of semi-true, untrue and some true information. The pain one might feel as a NKT follower reading my refutations of the validity of KG’s “purity”-definition is the result of being partisan, being attached to one’s religious system. As a result one is not open for an unbiased truthful investigation and feels pain if the own grasping to unverified and unsubstantiated beliefs is attacked through reasoning.
54

Patrick on January 22, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Reply

Hi again.

It says – GKG writes in Understanding the Mind:
“it is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism … studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions … the practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.” (pp. 166-167).
Is that true

The Mahamudra teachings of the Kagyu tradition are to meditate at the navel, whilst for Je Tsongkhapa they are to meditate at the heart. How do you practice both teachings? Wouldn’t it be better to pick one tradition and to spend all your Mahamudra meditations on either the heart or the navel, rather than switching between them? In Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition you ask the lineage gurus of this tradition for blessings to help with meditation, and also visualise your guru in the aspect of JT and ask for blessings. As far as I know, this is different to the Kagyu tradition. So if you practice both traditions, what aspect do you see your guru in, and whose lineage guru’s do you ask for blessings? To me, it seems more effective to either make requests to the lineage gurus in JT’s tradition or the Kagyu tradition that to keep switching between them.

It says – ‘Does Geshe Kelsang believe that Westerners are incapable of digesting the rich diet of the ancient texts themselves? Incapable of receiving a full and nutritious diet?’
It’s great that people like yourself and Tenpel are able to study so much, and know so many different teachings. I have a lot of respect for that, and it would be beneficial for me and others to rejoice in your effort and knowledge. But I don’t think this approach is suitable for everyone, and so the NKT provides an opportunity for people to experience Buddha’s teachings without the need for such extensive studying.

It says – ‘So yes, Atisha held Serlingpa in high esteem—however, he also refuted Serlingpa’s main philosophical standpoint. He did not allow reverence for Serlingpa to dull his own critical faculty. In the two major texts by GKG that I have viewed, Joyful Path of Good Fortune and Meaningful to Behold, there is no mention of Atisha’s philosophical differences with Serlingpa , though GKG does speak of Atisha’s great devotion for Serlingpa.’
In ‘Ocean of Nectar’ on p55 it says that Serlingpa was a Chittamatrin. There’s also another reference in another book about them having different views but I can’t remember where it is. Sorry.

Thanks
Patrick
- 55
  
  dharmaanarchist on January 23, 2014 at 1:44 am
  Reply
  
  “The Mahamudra teachings of the Kagyu tradition are to meditate at the navel, whilst for Je Tsongkhapa they are to meditate at the heart. How do you practice both teachings? Wouldn’t it be better to pick one tradition and to spend all your Mahamudra meditations on either the heart or the navel, rather than switching between them? In Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition you ask the lineage gurus of this tradition for blessings to help with meditation, and also visualise your guru in the aspect of JT and ask for blessings. As far as I know, this is different to the Kagyu tradition. So if you practice both traditions, what aspect do you see your guru in, and whose lineage guru’s do you ask for blessings? To me, it seems more effective to either make requests to the lineage gurus in JT’s tradition or the Kagyu tradition that to keep switching between them.”
  
  This is true for tantric teachings if you are at a beginners level.
  
  Here you have to differentiate between tantric teachings and sutrayana teachings. Sutrayana teachings from all buddhist traditions are perfectly compatible. You can combine Lamrim teachings from any Gelug teacher with sutrayana teachings from Kagyu, Nyingma etc.
  
  With teachings on philosophy you might have difficulties if you hear them from the different traditions because they have different terminology. If you know that and are willing to sink your intellectual teeth into those terminology issues it’s not a big deal either. For example I heard teachings on emptiness nature from the Gelug tradition as well as from very Dzogchen oriented Nyingma teachers and it’s not a problem at all if you know what they are talking about.
  
  Meditation instructions is a different matter. Here it is indeed advised not to mix traditions if you are at a beginners level. But usually you have one (tantric) root guru (who doesn’t have to be the same teacher as who you do the sutra stuff with!!!!!) and you follow that one tantric tradition.
  
  So mixing different tantric traditions if you are not very well versed in tantric practice is not a good idea. Mixing sutra teachings from different lineages/tradition is perfectly fine as long as you tackle the terminology problems (which are not that great if it’s basic lamrim and not the more sophisticated philosophy stuff)
  
  And I agree with tenpel on the so called “impure” dharma. That in itself is ridiculous. Because if it’s not pure it’s automatically not dharma. It’s either dharma or non-dharma, not pure or impure dharma.
  
  I am Austrian, and frankly, this whole purity issue leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Because where I live some decades ago purity of race was a very big thing and blaming others to be impure was a big disgrace and possibly life threatening. It also has a connotation of heresy, as it is used in Christianity, where different sect accused each other to be heretic. Something that has absolutely nothing to do with buddhism.
  
  Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, Zen, Theravada dharma is just as authentic dharma as Gelug dharma. So pointing finger in a them-impure us-pure way is completely improper.
  Now if you personally find it wise to follow more than one of those traditions is a completely personal matter. It has nothing to do with purity or impurity of dharma. It has to do with your personal capacity and preferrences. It’s your own responsibility and duty to decide for yourself. And only for yourself. My personal suggestion is that an educated adult is capable of making responsible spiritual decisions and doesn’t need a babysitter to tell them what to do. How do you become an educated adult? By looking into different traditions, evaluating them for yourself and then making an informed decision for yourself based on which of those tradition suits you best. And only when you chose a tradition getting seriously involved in tantric teachings. You shouldn’t jump more seriously into tantra right away anyway. So making the decision which tantric tradition to follow is not something that is at the beginning of your dharma path but only when you have already made a commitment to one teacher with whom you feel you have a heart connection.
  
  If you are confused about, oh, should I visualize at the navel or heart, should I do it Gelug or Kagyu style, you are probably not at a point where you should do those practices at all because you lack the knowledge behind it and haven’t chosen your root guru, made that important connection. Because if you had, the question usually wouldn’t arise (and if it would, you could ask that root guru what to do).
56

Patrick on January 22, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Reply

Hi again.

It says – ‘In addition, if one compares GKG’s main commentary on Lamrim, Joyful Path of Good Fortune with Tsongkhapa’s major commentary on Lamrim, Lamrim Chenmo, it appears that overall, GKG’s instructions on guru reliance are weighted towards blind faith, while Tsongkhapa’s are not. GKG advises us to view the lama as a Buddha, with the reasoning that the faults we see in our lama are actually faults in ourselves and our own faulty perceptions. In fact, I found no teaching whatsoever coming from GKG about how we are to act when the lama advises us to do something that is not in accord with the Dharma, no acknowledgement anywhere that lamas will have faults. He does not provide students with that important dimension to proper reliance on a spiritual teacher—nor does he allow them to believe their own eyes if they see faults.
On the other hand, Tsongkhapa acknowledges that lamas will have faults, saying “if you rely on nonvirtuous teachers and bad friends, your qualities will slowly diminish …” (p.90). He also quotes from several sources about what to do if the lama advises us wrongly: “… the Cloud of Jewels Sutra says, ‘With respect to virtue, act in accord with the guru’s words, but do not act in accord with the guru’s words with respect to nonvirtue.’” (86). Even in the context of the instruction “seeing the guru as Buddha,” Tsongkhapa’s advice is grounded in sound reason, steering students well away from blind faith. He reasons that focusing on the good qualities of our lamas, while ignoring their faults, will help us better cultivate those good qualities in ourselves. Unlike GKG, Tsongkhapa does not stress that it is our own misperception when we see faults in our lamas! He does not put blinkers on our eyes! Faults are faults—not seeing them is blindness. Not focusing on them is a useful training of the mind.’

What’s blind faith in terms of Buddhist teachings? If I believe in past and future lives and karma, do I have blind faith because these are things I can’t see?
There are 4 reasons given in the Lamrim teachings in the NKT as to how develop conviction that our Spiritual Guide is a Buddha – ‘Buddha Vajradhara said that Spiritual Guides are Buddhas, our Spiritual Guide performs the enlightened actions of a Buddha, in these degenerate times Buddhas continue to work for the benefit of all living beings, appearances are deceptive and our own opinions are unreliable.’ (p108 of ‘Joyful Path of Good Fortune’).
In the same book on p96-97 it says ‘To become a perfect Mahayana disciple we need to develop the following qualifications….(2) The wisdom to discriminate pure Dharma teachings that will bring real benefit from teachings that are false. Without this wisdom a disciple is easily confused and led astray when listening to or reading mistaken teachings’

It says – ‘Students have no access to the extraordinary means—provided by Tsongkhapa himself—by which they can judge GKG’s commentaries—except those means provided by GKG!’
Students in the NKT can buy over the internet or in bookshops lots of different books by other Buddhist teachers if they want to.

Cheers

Patrick
- 57
  
  john6747 on January 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm
  Reply
  
  The article to which you refer says…
  … ‘For my purposes here, I will be using the term “purity” to refer to a meaning of authenticity or correctness…’
  You reply….
  …. ‘This isn’t actually what the term ‘pure dharma’ means when used in the NKT.’
  
  Are you saying, ‘Pure Dharma, when used in the NKT’ doesn’t mean ‘authentic and correct’?
  You quote …
  ….‘The Dharma is pure if it reveals the entire path that leads to Enlightenment, presents each point unmistakenly, and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage form Buddha Shakyamuni. The Dharma that is explained here, the Lamrim, is pure because it possess these three necessary conditions.’
  Surely, the NKT description is also referring to something ‘authentic and correct’. If not, then the NKT Dharma could not be pure, and it would not reveal ‘the path that leads to Enlightenment’.
  There are many forms of Buddhism, each explaining in their own way a path to enlightenment. The NKT is just one. To say we are ‘unmistaken’ infers that others are wrong if they differ from the NKT version.
  There is the NKT Canon and it is believed, by its followers, to be ‘authentic and correct’ and in consequence ‘pure’.
  It is , of course, possible to create a religion as in the case of Scientology, with its own canon. It also may be that along the Scientologist’s path ‘each point of that canon be explained ‘unmistakenly and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage’ from Ron Hubbard!
  That just leaves the claim about the path leading to enlightenment. Is it something anyone can prove? I suppose that would depend upon the definition.
  Later in your statement you say…
  … ‘The issue here is how much change can you make and still be part of the same tradition, for example how much change can GKG make and his teachings and tradition still be called Je Tsongkapa’s traiditon?
  I agree and am reminded of the TV programme, Only Fools and Horses. One character, Trigger, was boasting about his brush being the best one he had ever had. He said, ‘It’s only had five new heads and three new handles!’
  You also say…
  
  …’I think it’s very hard to say because it’s very rare in the history of Buddhism to have a teacher take Buddhism from one culture (Tibet) to a completely different one (England, and then the rest of the world), and so there is nothing to compare it to. Who else has tried this and we can look at and see what they have kept and what they haven’t, and so we can compare’.
  Well it’s not Buddhism but Christianity may be a useful comparison.
  Your reference to things you couldn’t do I think there are some things which you couldn’t do ‘such as taking children at the age of 7 and ordaining them and putting them in a monastary’.
  Well that is true but the NKT are running a school which claims not to be turning children into Buddhists and Dharma teaching is at the core of what they do.
- 58
  
  dharmaanarchist on January 23, 2014 at 2:07 am
  Reply
  
  A spiritual guide doesn’t have to be a buddha. For sutrayana teachings a bodhisattva on the bhumis, or even an ordinary person with correct knowledge and good intention is perfectly qualified.
  
  And you don’t have to develop the conviction that your spiritual guide is a buddha. Because this “developing” sounds suspiciously like some kind of self-brainwashing.
  
  Now with vajrayana it’s a wholly different matter. Whether a vajra master is fully enlightened, an arya bodhisattva or an ordinary person is really hard to determine for a student. And the so called pure perception is an even more subtle matter. And it’s definitely not some sort of self brainwashing, that’s definitely not the meaning of pure perception in vajrayana.
  Even if the vajra master is not fully enlightened, if he is qualified to give the transmission, for the discpiles he fulfils the role of the perfect buddha.
  Now before you accept some teacher as your tantric guru you should observe that person really really carefully and not plunge into a tantric commitment right away, but only if you can clearly see qualities in that person. First making the connection with someone who you see as grossly imperfect and unenlightened, or just some guy on a throne who you are told is supposedly enlightened and THEN brainwashing yourself into seeing that person as the perfect buddha, ignoring really existing faults would be really stupid and useless and a misperception of vajrayana.
- 59
  
  dharmaanarchist on January 23, 2014 at 2:14 am
  Reply
  
  Oh and by the way, if you make a tantric connection to a guru who is misleading his students, you might in the worst case scenario end up in vajra hell along with that misguiding guru. Such a person can really drag you down.
  
  So, better don’t do stupid trust and blind faith in vajrayana. There is just too much at stake.
60

john6747 on January 23, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Reply

11§2. If any ordained person breaks his or her ordination vows, then he or she cannot live in an NKT-IKBU Dharma Centre for at least one year. After one year, with some conditions, he or she can return to live in a Dharma Centre, but cannot thereafter teach Dharma or participate in the NKT Teacher Training Programme, (even if he or she later takes ordination for a second time). During the year of probation, he or she cannot participate in any of the three daily Study Programmes of a Dharma Centre, but (at the discretion of the Centre managers and Resident Teacher) may attend occasional Centre classes as a visitor. He or she may attend NKT-IKBU Festivals and Dharma Celebrations.

http://www.kmclondon.org/sttp
- 61
  
  tenpel on January 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm
  Reply
  
  11§2.b Rule 11§2 doesn’t apply for persons who are of special benefit for the NKT and who are able to attract a lot of people.
  
  http://www.kmclondon.org/sttp
  - 62
    
    john6747 on January 24, 2014 at 5:13 pm
    Reply
    
    The NKT-IKBU organisers have had to deal with a few scrapes over the years but have always claimed they, ‘had done nothing wrong.’ They even allowed us critics the luxury of ‘explanations’ telling us we were mistaken.
    
    I have been a critic of the NKT-IKBU for a number of years, not so much for the content of the teaching, but for the way the organisation appeared to be a law unto itself. However, I now realise the folly of my ways. I am indebted to the following for my realisation.
    
    The NKT-IKBU is well known for its approach of ‘openness and transparency’ when explaining its actions to us poor deluded folk. They even went to the trouble of creating a website, describing its purpose…
    ‘…Its primary purpose is to provide in-depth, authoritative refutation of smears against the NKT ~ IKBU for those who have read or heard defamation of this time-honored Buddhist tradition.’
    |
    I became aware this week that, ‘Venerable Geshe-la has requested that Kadam Neil Elliott be the Resident Teacher of KMC London and teach STTP.’
    
    He is described as having been, ‘a disciple of Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for over 35 years’.
    
    He must have been taking a sabbatical during those lost years between ‘stepping down’ and his reappearance.
    
    This appointment as teacher and mentor for future aspirants to the role, proves that all the rumour associated with the departure of Gen Thubten aka Neil Elliott, was based on the false assumption that monastic vows had been broken.
    
    I base this finding after reading the Internal Rules of the NKT-IKBU which state…
    
    ‘…If any ordained person breaks his or her ordination vows, then…’ they, ‘ can not thereafter teach Dharma or participate in the NKT Teacher Training Programme,’.
    
    Such a ‘time honored Buddhist tradition’ would not contravene its own rules!
    
    I was congratulating myself on my new found realisations when dammit, my deluded mind remembered this…
    
    ‘Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships.’
    (Coney 1997)
63

john6747 on January 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Reply

Here is one for the mind gym

http://www.kmclondon.org/meditation-courses
64

Joanne on January 28, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Reply

John, I hope Neil Elliott isn’t going to be doing anymore translations in his new position! And btw, Patrick, I have a final count regarding the troubles with Elliott’s translation of the Bodhicharyavatara. There are 50 verses where Elliott’s translation is at odds with GKG’s commentary, as well as with all other translations. Sometimes he adds his own poetic flourishes, making up similes that simply aren’t there. There are another 11 verses in which GKG agrees with Elliott but no other translator does. In one of those cases, GKG’s commentary is actually contradictory and makes not sense, showing that he would have done better to stick with the mainstream translations. So Patrick, when you speak of this pure lineage, don’t accuracy, consistency, and logic have any place?

So when you speak of GKG bringing Buddhism into a new culture, does this mean that he can rewrite the texts from the Sanskrit scholars? And also, when you say that Buddhism has never been brought from one culture to another, that is incorrect– and you missed my point completely. I referred to Tibetan history in order to demonstrate the care which was taken in order to bring Buddhism from India (one culture) into Tibet (a different culture). Those early Tibetan translators and scholars wanted to be sure they were bringing an authentic form of Buddhism into Tibet. And also, Buddhism has been brought into China, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, Vietnam, Japan etc. etc. etc. How is this any different?

Also, Patrick, you quote from GKG on p. 55 in Ocean of Nectar. Have you read the entirety of that passage? It’s rather confusing. Here is what GKG says, “Thus, proponents of lower tenets such as Chittamatrins, are capable of correct meditation. This is obviously the case because Atisha’s great Teacher Lama Serlingpa was a Chittamatrin, who realized Bodhicitta, and he could not have gained this realization by becoming an inherently existent Buddha!”

What on earth is that supposed to mean? What does it mean to “realize Bodhicitta” in this context? Is he speaking of ultimate Bodhicitta (e.g. emptiness)? I imagine that realization of emptiness in the Chitimattrin context is markedly different from realizing it in the Madyamaka context– yet GKG seems to disagree. I have not idea– it just seems to me that GKG is uncomfortable with the fact that Atisha has a higher philosophical standpoint to his teacher and so he creates a distorted view in order to support that trouble he has.

And Patrick, one more point: You talk about the dangers of being confused over practicing different traditions, such as Kagyu and Gelug. I have two points to make about that. One is that a quality of Lamrim is its ability to show students that ALL the Buddha’s teachings are free of contradiction. Lamrim is a framework which is capable of being very inclusive, without confusion, not exclusive as the NKT approach. Second comes from Buddha himself, as further extrapolated in Maitreya’s Abhisamalamkara– where he describes Bodhisattvas as “knowers of paths”: Here is a quote from the 18,000 Verse Perfection of Wisdom sutra (and provided by Tsongkhapa in Lamrim Chenmo):

“Bodhisattvas should produce all paths– whatever is a path of a sravaka, a pratyekabuddha, or a Buddha– and should know all paths. They should also perform the deeds of these paths and bring them to completion.”

Patrick, all you have provided to prove any of your points are quotes from GKG. The Dharma is much much richer than one individual’s perspective– even if that individual were an amazing being and made no errors at all! Your approach is linear and narrow, bordering on fundamentalism. Dharma is broad and multi-dimensional. If you lose your ability to reference and cross-reference, you lose a vital component of Dharma.
65

Joanne on January 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Reply

And Patrick, I feel rather strongly about the trouble with the Shantideva text. I personally treasure that text and it has brought me through some very troubled times. So when I see a shoddy translation of it out in circulation, this is disturbing.

Worse still, several weeks ago, I wrote to Tharpa Publications about the troubles with the translation and I have had no reply. None. And their statement about the text being translated under the “guidance of Vernerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso” remains on their website. They don’t give a damn about the Dharma that NKT students (and others) are receiving. They don’t give a damn and that is wrong. It’s wrong wrong wrong.
66

john6747 on January 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Reply

Joanne.
To have no reply is not unusual. The drawbridge is up when the seekers of dialogue stand at the gates and request more than platitudes.
67

Joanne on January 28, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Reply

But have they no pride? No concern for the subject matter? If I wrote to any other publishing company, pointing out so many flaws in a publication, they would definitely respond– at least with a platitude!
- 68
  
  tenpel on January 29, 2014 at 3:56 am
  Reply
  
  they have pride, extreme pride, and that tells you: you cannot criticize or argue with god, ignore those critics.
69

Kevin on January 29, 2014 at 12:28 am
Reply

Dear Joanne,

You said:

[quote]Also, Patrick, you quote from GKG on p. 55 in Ocean of Nectar. Have you read the entirety of that passage? It’s rather confusing. Here is what GKG says, “Thus, proponents of lower tenets such as Chittamatrins, are capable of correct meditation. This is obviously the case because Atisha’s great Teacher Lama Serlingpa was a Chittamatrin, who realized Bodhicitta, and he could not have gained this realization by becoming an inherently existent Buddha!”

What on earth is that supposed to mean? What does it mean to “realize Bodhicitta” in this context? Is he speaking of ultimate Bodhicitta (e.g. emptiness)? I imagine that realization of emptiness in the Chitimattrin context is markedly different from realizing it in the Madyamaka context– yet GKG seems to disagree. I have not idea– it just seems to me that GKG is uncomfortable with the fact that Atisha has a higher philosophical standpoint to his teacher and so he creates a distorted view in order to support that trouble he has.[/quote]

There is nothing confusing about this passage whatsoever. Chittamatrins are capable of correct meditation on the paths of method, but not on paths of wisdom. The point that GKG is making is that bodhichitta is not a true-grasping mind and so Serlingpa was able to develop it even though he (apparently) had an inferior realisation of wisdom by holding the Chittamatrin view.
- 70
  
  john6747 on January 29, 2014 at 5:49 pm
  Reply
  
  “Thus, proponents of lower tenets such as Chittamatrins, are capable of correct meditation. This is obviously the case because Atisha’s great Teacher Lama Serlingpa was a Chittamatrin, who realized Bodhicitta, and he could not have gained this realization by becoming an inherently existent Buddha!”
  I presume that he means the realisation could not have been made by someone who thought he had become an inherently existent Buddha as a Buddha cannot exist inherently. Buddha must be a dependent arising. The original Buddha arose from the meditation but sat down as a prince..
71

Joanne on January 30, 2014 at 12:54 am
Reply

Kevin, I agree with you that Chittamatrins are capable of “correct meditation on the paths of method, but not on paths of wisdom” (at least so far as I can understand correct meditation). My question is: why then did GKG make this statement about Serlingpa’s meditation: “he could not have gained this realization by becoming an inherently existent Buddha!” Why did he then speak of the wisdom side of the path? As I am sure you know, investigations about whether or not self lacks inherent existence belong to the path of wisdom– and I am sure you know that Chittamatrins DO disagree with Madyamakas about the degree of inherent existence present in the self of persons (e.g. Buddha).

GKG’s statement is very garbled in my mind. When a person ‘realizes bodhicitta” I assume this means realizing ultimate bodhicitta– which one cannot do as a Madyamaka, while still adhering to a Chittamatrin view. The Chittamatrin view does not negate inherent existence across the board as does the Madyamaka. So how could a Chittamatrin correctly meditate on emptiness without changing to the Madyamaka view?

So then I was wondering if GKG meant that Serlingpa realized “relative bodhicitta”? Can one “realize” relative bodhicitta? If GKG did mean this, why did he also mention the Buddha lacking inherent existence? Also, on the method side of the path, I’ve heard of “generating bodhicitta” and “practicing bodhicitta” and “increasing bodhicitta” etc.– but I’ve never heard of “realizing bodhicitta” and thus I ended up very confused.

I know that I could simply be ignorant about all of this, so do help me out!
- 72
  
  john6747 on January 30, 2014 at 11:30 am
  Reply
  
  I may be wrong but I believe him to mean Lama Serlingpa, although initially a holder of the Chittamarin view, was capable of correct meditation and of understanding the Madyamaka view. The Chittamarin view was of an inherently existent Buddha. Lama Serlingpa, if he had remained with this view, would not have a ‘correct’ understanding as the Madayamaka view is of a non inherent Buddha.
  
  Below is a piece from Lama Zopa. If I am ‘teaching my granny to suck eggs’ here I apologise.
  
  ‘Schools of Buddhist philosophy and the object of refutation
  I started this discussion by saying how everything exists as merely labelled by mind, and then went on to clarify that simply labelling things is not enough to bring them into existence, that just because something is merely labelled, it exists. Then I went on to mention the three things required for something to exist: a valid base, not receiving harm from another’s valid mind, and not receiving harm from the wisdom realizing emptiness. Now, going back to the bell. As I mentioned before, the way the bell appears to us and the way in which we believe it to exist are slightly beyond the way it actually exists, which is in mere name, as merely labelled by the mind. This difference is a very subtle hallucination that, in Buddhist philosophical teachings, is called the “object to be refuted,” or the “object of refutation.” There are four schools of Buddhist philosophy — Vaibashika (che-tra-mra-wa), Sautrantika (do-de-pa), Cittamatra (sem-tsam) and Madhyamika (u-ma-pa). The fourth of these is the Middle Way school and is divided into two: Svatantrika (rang-gyu-pa) and Prasangika (thal-gyur-wa). According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha) is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than — a little over and above — what is merely labelled by the mind. The object of refutation is what appears to us; it is that in which we believe. In order to attain liberation from the entire round of suffering and its cause, we need to cut its very root, the fundamental ignorance that keeps us in it. Of the many kinds of ignorance, which is the specific one that we have to eradicate? It is not the concept that believes the bell to exist the way it appears, which is what the texts usually describe as the root of samsara — except that in the case of the root of samsara, we should be talking about the I, not the bell that I’ve been using as an example here. When the I appears to us, we believe that there is something slightly over and above what is merely labelled by the mind and that this is how the I exists. Then we believe that this is one hundred percent true and let our mind hold on to that. It is this specific, particular ignorance that is the root of all delusion, karma and suffering. This very one. It’s not just any type of ignorance — it’s this one. As well as this kind of ignorance, there’s the one described by the second Madhyamika school, the Svatantrika — the hallucination on the I, the object to be refuted according to their view. I’m just mentioning this so that you’ll have an idea of how trapped our minds are, how many different levels of ignorance we experience, how many kinds of hallucination there are. The hallucination on the I that the Svatantrikas describe is grosser than the one the Prasangikas explain. Then there’s the Cittamatrins’ version, where they say that the I exists from its own side without depending on mental imprints, without the mind as creator. They describe a seventh level of consciousness — normally we talk about just six — that is called the basis of samsara and nirvana. So they say that the I exists totally from its own side without depending on imprints left on this seventh level of consciousness and describe it as a self-entity. According to Hindu philosophy, the I, which they call atman, is permanent. While the self is actually impermanent, they believe it to be permanent. Therefore, there’s a lot of discussion in Buddhist texts refuting this view, explaining that while the self may appear to us to be permanent, in fact it changes moment by moment due to causes and conditions and is therefore impermanent. If you look at your I right now, you’ll see that it appears to be permanent, whereas you know that in reality it is impermanent in nature. Other views hold, for example, that while the I is dependent upon parts, there is the appearance and the belief that it exists alone, not dependent upon parts, or that while the I is dependent upon causes and conditions, there is the appearance and the belief that it exists with its own freedom, without depending on causes and conditions. These gross hallucinations are described and posited as the object of refutation by the first Buddhist school, the Vaibashika. This school has eighteen divisions, each with its own variant view. Then there’s the hallucination that even though the I exists dependent upon the group and continuity of the aggregates, it appears to us as a self-entity existing without depending on the group and continuity of the aggregates. So these are some of the positions held by the Vaibashika and the Sautrantika, the lower Buddhist schools. How has it come about that there are these four schools of Buddhist philosophy? It’s due to the different ways of explaining what the I is. In reality, emptiness is just one, not many. There is only one emptiness that directly cuts the root of samsara. This is the emptiness taught by the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, whose view of emptiness is the unmistaken, pure one and the only one that can cut the specific ignorance that I mentioned before. However, not everybody has the karma to accept this, to understand this, to realize this. Sentient beings have different levels of mind. Therefore, the all-knowing, kind, compassionate Buddha taught varying levels of philosophy to guide sentient beings’ minds gradually up to the level where they could realize the Prasangika view of emptiness. One could start with the gross explanations of emptiness taught by the lower schools and gradually progress up to the most subtle, the Prasangika. That’s how the four schools came into being. The lower schools were steps to the higher ones, leading ultimately to the Prasangika. So even though the views of these various schools seem to contradict each other, actually they’re a method for gradually developing through study and meditation the Prasangika view’.
  
  I suggest that GKG meant Serlingpa, through meditation etc. was able to ‘realize’ in a gradual way, the Madyamaka view.
73

Joanne on January 30, 2014 at 12:57 am
Reply

And also, what does it mean to “become an inherently existent Buddha”? That is such a strange statement. Is it just a joke?
74

Joanne on January 30, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Reply

Thank you, John, for that explanation. My only trouble is that if GKG meant that “Serlingpa, through meditation etc. was able to ‘realize’ in a gradual way, the Madyamaka view.” why didn’t he say that? Also, if you look at the context in which GKG makes this statement, I believe that he is speaking generally about correct meditation on topics such as impermanence etc.– topics where agreement between schools already exists.

Also, is there any historical evidence of Serlingpa changing positions to the Madyamaka view? I haven’t seen any (but that certainly doesn’t mean none exist!). Also, Tsongkhapa himself speaks of the differences between Serlingpa and Atisha in Lamrim Chenmo, as I quoted in my post– he states clearly that Atisha held a superior view to his lama– but he didn’t refer to any historical time when Serlingpa changed views.

So now we have Kevin explaining that passage to be referring to the method side of the path– and John explaining that passage to be referring to the wisdom side of the path– and me still explaining that I feel confused!

And still, how can one become an inherently existent Buddha? Can anybody “become” inherently existent? Can anyone “become” non-inherently existent?
- 75
  
  Kevin on January 31, 2014 at 9:55 am
  Reply
  
  Dear Joanne, my understanding is that GKG is referring to Serlingpa’s method realisations when he says that Chittamatrins are capable of correct meditation. Technically, if you hold the Chittamatrin view of emptiness, you cannot progress beyond the Path of Preparation. It was possible for Serlingpa to become a bodhisattva by developing spontaneous bodhichitta because the development of conventional bodhichitta does not depend upon having a correct view of emptiness. When we develop the thought “I must become a Buddha for the benefit of all”, that thought does not apprehend an inherently existent Buddha. If it did, it would be a true grasping mind and Serlingpa would not have been able to develop bodhichitta. The fact that he did is an indication that conventional bodhichitta (as well as love and compassion) is not a true grasping mind and therefore those who do not have a correct view of emptiness can still develop method realisations such as universal love, universal compassion and bodhichitta, but unless they hold a correct view of emptiness, it will be impossible to complete the path to enlightenment even though they wish for it and maybe possess bodhichitta.
- 76
  
  john6747 on January 31, 2014 at 10:50 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Joanne
  
  I understand a Buddha with inherent existence or existing independently, to be a Bhudda which does not rely on any outside agency for its existence, which I believe to be the Buddha of the Chittamarin.
  
  I understand a non-inherently existent Buddha to be dependent arising. Yes, there is some phenomenon in front of us, which has a valid base for me and others to give it a name.
  
  Some in the NKT have called GKG a Buddha. Well maybe for them he is as they see a valid base on which to fasten the name. To others the title is not valid as the phenomenon of GKG does not have the qualities. This is illustrated by Tenzin’s comments in a reply to Kevin, in the Interview with the Dalai Lama section of this site. There is an example of one phenomenon eliciting different responses.
  
  ‘Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am’.
  King James Bible.
  
  The decision as to who is ‘right’ will depend on who you ask and when. This usually depends on where the power lies. Remember Peter denying knowing Jesus when he was afraid for his own safety.
  
  The circumstances which gave rise to Prince Siddharta and his eventual recognition as Buddha are well documented. The term Buddha is used by some to one who can be described as the ‘awakened one.’ This describes someone who, although dependent arising and ever changing, is defined by others and the concept is fixed as the ‘reality’. It appears that Siddharta, although constantly changing, must have been consistent in his message and action. He could not, however, avoid the physical processes which led to his ‘death’.
  
  The question I ask, is how far does someone have to change so that the original concept is no longer appropriate to describe that person? GKG was identified as an appropriate person to teach at the Manjushri Insitute by the powers that be at the time but eventually gained enough power himself to redefine the situation and go his own way. The old concept of GKG held by those who sent him became redundant as he no longer displayed the valid base necessary for maintaining it.
  
  Your post about not receiving a reply to your concern about translation and the reply from Kevin have been useful for me as they prompted me to look at various texts again.
  
  If GKG wants to maintain a ‘pure’ understanding of the texts, which I presume means that everyone understands them without ambiguity, he has a monumental task!
77

Joanne on January 31, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Reply

Thank you, Kevin, your explanation is helpful. I think my confusion was mainly about the term “gaining realization” of bodhicitta and “realizing bodhicitta.” That is only a term I have heard in reference to absolute bodhicitta. If you look at texts such as Maitreya’s Abhisamalamkara, and Tsongkhapa’s commentary on that, relative bodhicitta is a “thought”, with an “accompanying desire to do”– but it seems that GKG uses the terminology– “realization” to describe some point along the spectrum of generating bodhicitta. As Maitreya describes 22 types of bodhicitta, I am confused about which one Serlingpa “realized”, for example. That appears to be where the trouble lies for me. So I thank you for that clarity.

And John, I don’t think the issue is necessarily about whether or not GKG is a Buddha. The scriptures are clear that we can’t make that distinction about anyone with complete confidence. For me, the discussion here is about the need for Western dharma students to question the teachings and writings of their teachers.
- 78
  
  john6747 on February 1, 2014 at 10:10 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Joanne
  
  Your guest post title…
  
  …Is the NKT a Pure Lineage of Tsongkhapa? The Problem With Root Texts Within the NKT Study Program.
  
  So your comment …‘For me, the discussion here is about the need for Western dharma students to question the teachings and writings of their teachers.’ Is understandable if you want to get us back on track.
  
  My reference to GKG was to illustrate, probably for my own benefit, how an unenlightened one may come to view phenomena as inherently existent through concepts and a reliance on them being true rather than viewing phenomena as empty.
  
  It stemmed from the discussion which had arisen based on interpretation of a text.
  
  Of course, this reply to you , is the result of dependent arising and my self grasping.
79

Joanne on February 1, 2014 at 12:35 am
Reply

Oh dear, Kevin, as I think more on the subject, I am no longer satisfied with your explanation! You said,

“When we develop the thought “I must become a Buddha for the benefit of all”, that thought does not apprehend an inherently existent Buddha. If it did, it would be a true grasping mind and Serlingpa would not have been able to develop bodhichitta. The fact that he did is an indication that conventional bodhichitta (as well as love and compassion) is not a true grasping mind and therefore those who do not have a correct view of emptiness can still develop method realisations such as universal love, universal compassion and bodhichitta…”

It is my impression that bodhicitta can be– and is– generated in a mind which still grasps at inherent existence. In fact, your statement is rather contradicting, when you say that conventional bodhicitta is not a grasping mind and so it can be generated in people who don’t have a correct view of emptiness! How can two opposing minds exist together?

It is my understanding that bodhicitta can be generated simply from the thought accompanied by a desire to do. On the method path, this desire strengthens from the paths of accumulation to preparation to seeing to meditation etc. On the wisdom side, the grasping at inherent existence weakens– but it is not until the eighth bodhisattva ground on the path of seeing that this is eliminated. And even then, I believe that there are still subtle cognitive obscurations. So in meditations on love and compassion, there would still be grasping at selfhood right up until the eighth ground– which, as you say, Chittamatrins can’t achieve. How can they adhere to a philosophy which claims inherent existence and yet meditate in such a way that denies this inherent existence? How can they gain realization equivalent to a Madyamaka view without holding that view? If they don’t have a proper view of emptiness, how can they meditate without grasping at some form of inherent existence?

The reality is that in the Sutra system of meditation, which is the subject of this discussion, a meditator cannot meditate on method at the same time that he/she meditates on wisdom. I believe that is a fact. It is only in tantra that the two can be in union. So, I believe that this is where the confusion lies and why I was shocked to hear GKG combine the two the way he did, speaking of “realizing” bodhicitta, as if speaking of some union of method and wisdom. When a meditator is meditating on love or compassion, then he/she cannot be meditating on emptiness– and vica versa. At least that is my understanding.

If I were to presume what GKG is trying (unsuccessfully) to say it would be that Chittamatrins meditate correctly on loving kindness and compassion because, like impermanence, these are meditations which do not rely on having a correct view of emptiness. At least that would make sense and be quite clear. Unfortunately, he actually states something quite different.
80

Joanne on February 1, 2014 at 12:51 am
Reply

Kevin, how can anyone realize a philosophical viewpoint that they don’t agree with?!!! (e.g. how can Chittamatrins realize the Prasangika view without agreeing with the Prasangika view?)

Is it like being born-again?
- 81
  
  dharmaanarchist on February 1, 2014 at 6:27 pm
  Reply
  
  Very easy.
  
  A philosophical viewpoint is a conceptual thought.
  But realization is the product of correctly applying a meditation technique. So even if if you have non ultimate philosophical opinions, if you apply the appropriate practices in a correct way you will still gain a correct realisation. It may be easier if your practice is supported by the correct philosophical conviction, but it will not prevent the practice to work if you don’t. In fact there are practitioners who haven’t done much study of philosophy who attained realisation. For reference see some of the 84 mahasiddhas.
82

Joanne on February 1, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Reply

And Kevin, I apologize and have a correction to my comment of yesterday. This morning, after reading Tsongkhapa’s commentary on Haribadhra’s commentary on the Abhisamalamkara, I realize that the production of the thought (of enlightenment) accompanied by “desire to do” only occurs on the path of accumulation. On the other paths, it is accumulated by practice (preparation), the six perfections (path of seeing), merit and wisdom (seeing), the remaining three perfections (meditation) etc. etc. on up to being accompanied by the dharma body on the final of the special paths (no more learning, buddhahood).

Kevin, on which stage does “realization of bodhicitta,” as described by GKG in his description of Serlingpa’s realization, occur?
83

Joanne on February 2, 2014 at 12:19 am
Reply

Sorry, dharmaanarchist, but “very easy” doesn’t work for me if you’re talking about gaining enlightenment! But I think you’re right nonetheless. In a karmically ripened individual blessed with a highly realized master, instant enlightenment is said to occur, — so I suppose this could even happen with someone who has a lower philosophical outlook, jumping his/her perspective in one leap from Chittamatrin to Prasangika. However, I never heard of that happening with Serlingpa.

Whether or not there has to be a base of philosophical understanding for realization to occur is beyond my ability to talk about for sure– so my statement was probably a little rash. However, one Dzogchen master once told me that trying to practice Dzogchen without a philosophical understanding of madyamaka is like trying to rock climb a cliff without hands.

And of course, the study question is a debate we could spend days on and it’s a whole other tract. But when you talk about the mahasiddhas and quick enlightenment, then you’re in the realm of tantra– and I think Kevin, GKG and I were in the sutra realm with most of our ideas.
- 84
  
  tenpel on February 2, 2014 at 12:55 am
  Reply
  
  I didn’t follow the discussion but just as a note: many of Buddha’s disciples attained high realizations up to, including Arhatship in the way the Buddha communicated with them. Those disciples of the Buddha realized highest attainments not via tantra … These disciples might not have had any Madhyamaka or Chittamatra view or even calm abiding … however, they had a lot of good Karma from previous lives and a karmic relation with the Buddha. This reminds me of the Mahamudra approach where the realizations of the master, the virtues of the student and their karmic bond might induce that the student realizes the ultimate …
  
  Also, even if someone follows the Chittamatra view there is no certainty that he/she might not find the Madhyamaka view in deep meditation …
85

Joanne on February 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Reply

Good point, Tenpel. Thank you to both you and dharmaanarchist– I stand corrected.

The discussion is about whether or not this occurred with Lama Serlingpa– and whether such an event is what GKG is referring to when he says that Serlingpa meditated correctly, though he was a Chittamatrin, and thereby “realized bodhicitta”– and GKG further stated that Serlingpa could not have done this while aspiring to “become an inherently existent Buddha.” My main query is what GKG means by “realizing bodhicitta” because it’s unclear to me in the text. Kevin says that it refers to relative bodhicitta.
- 86
  
  tenpel on February 4, 2014 at 10:12 am
  Reply
  
  With CM view Serlingpa can definitely realize conventional Bodhichitta but if he doesn’t move to Madhyamika view – according to Madhyamakas like Chandrakirti – he cannot realize ultimate Bodhichitta. How one cultivates conventional Bodhichitta according to Chittamatra view is addressed in this book by Gen Lobsang Gyatso*: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=6666
  
  *He is the person who was brutally murdered … his bio you can find here: “Memoirs of a Tibetan Lama” http://books.google.de/books/about/Memoirs_of_a_Tibetan_Lama.html?id=GL2E4WBC2D4C&redir_esc=y (Its really a good book which highlights the life of a sincere monk who found a terrible death in the Shugden issue.)
87

Kevin on February 4, 2014 at 10:23 am
Reply

Dear Joanne,

I believe that GKG is definitely referring to conventional bodhichitta. It is possible for those who follow a lower view of emptiness to gain method realisations and some wisdom realisations but they will not progress beyond the path of preparation. It’s possible for those who possess a lower wisdom view to progress through the power of logic and consequences. It’s the Prasangika approach to refute the views of the lower schools using mainly consequences, showing the absurd consequences of holding such a view. If the person is open minded enough and really adhering to logic and not simply holding a view out of attachment, they will definitely come to appreciate the validity of the Prasangika view.

Not all mind are contaminated by self-grasping. Tsongkhapa’s approach was to unite the Middle Way teachings of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti with the teachings by Dharmakirti on valid cognition. Sure, there is dualistic appearance, but if all our mind were true grasping minds it wouldn’t be possible to perceive anything validly. Compassion would be wishing inherently existent living beings to be free from suffering and that could never happen and so compassion would be a wrong mind! Since we do apprehend mere sentient beings, and it’s those mere sentient beings who are suffering, compassion is valid and a path to enlightenment. It’s also the same for love and bodhichitta.
- 88
  
  tenpel on February 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm
  Reply
  
  All minds of an ordinary being are mistaken because they wrongly perceive inherent existence. Compassion perceiving inherent existent sentient beings is correct with respect to its “object of engagement” but not with respect to its “conceived object” because it perceives inherent existence and believes in this appearance. It helps to understand the different type of objects as outlined in the Lorig, e.g. this book http://www.amazon.de/Mind-Tibetan-Buddhism-Lati-Rinbochay/dp/0937938025 pp. 28 ff
  
  Its true that Tsongkhapa says somewhere (I assume Lamrim Chen Mo Insight Chapter) something like that the view of the transitory collection is not always present in sentient beings e.g. while walking. However, I assume it means that there is no active grasping in the believe of inherent existence because up to and not including Buddhahood all minds (except a direct realization of emptiness in meditative equipoise) perceive inherent existent objects and are therefore mistaken (but not necessarily wrong minds with respect to their object of engagement).
  
  It might be also good to note, that there is not ONE Chittamatra view, there are different views and only one of them was singled out (that of Stiramatri or so – I cannot remember is exact name) and was attacked. It might be that on a meditational level there is not much of a difference but scholars make big differences. Where Shantarakshita and Kamalashila who united the Chittamatra View (with respect to conventional phenomena) with Prasangika (with respect to the ultimate) totally wrong? How can you be so sure about it 😉
  
  However, just some quick thoughts please check for yourself if this is important for you. It is not good to put down CM view I think and what the Madhyamika Prasangikas say about CM view is as if you read right wing literature to understand the left wing ideology. Better to read the respective texts in an unbiased manner and to form an own opinion.
89

Joanne on February 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Reply

Dear Tenzin and Kevin

I have some questions. First, what does it mean to “realize” bodhicitta (conventionally)? I have never heard that term except from GKG (and now Tenzin) and I am confused about what it means.

And Kevin, along the same lines, you say, “Compassion would be wishing inherently existent living beings to be free from suffering and that could never happen and so compassion would be a wrong mind! ”

Are you saying that if a meditator still sees some inherent existence, whether subtlety or grossly, in the objects of his/her compassion then this is not compassion?
- 90
  
  dharmaanarchist on February 5, 2014 at 6:20 pm
  Reply
  
  If you define “realizing” as attaining state you can’t fall back from, a stable realization of absolute bodhicitta would mean that you enter the first bodhisattva bhumi.
  
  Is there something like a realisation (stability without the danger of falling back) of relative bodhicitta? As long as it’s conventional bodhicitta I think it can not be beyond falling back into selfishly motivated deeds as there is still this inherent clinging to an ego that can drive you to act negatively when sufficintly provoked.
  - 91
    
    tenpel on February 5, 2014 at 10:13 pm
    Reply
    
    Is there something like a realisation (stability without the danger of falling back) of relative bodhicitta?
    
    yes. on the first level on the small path of accumulation, earth like bodhicitta, can degenerate, from the second level of the path of accumulation onwards it cannot degenerate, that’s why the Bodhicitta on the second level is called gold like Bodhicitta.
92

Joanne on February 6, 2014 at 12:56 am
Reply

Tenzin and Darmaanarchist, I’m sure you won’t find your definition of “realization” in any dictionary! However, probably a better way to frame my question would be to ask if you would find the same Sanskrit or Tibetan term for “realizing” ultimate bodhicitta as you would for “realizing” conventional bodhicitta? I am fairly certain that you would not– for the simple fact that realization is not a good translation of what occurs in the generation, cultivation and stabilizing of conventional bodhicitta. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

Also, Kevin, regarding your description of compassion, I also feel quite certain that a meditator meditating on compassion would continue to have some level of grasping at inherent existence in that meditation right through the path of meditation (albeit very subtle and perhaps at times inactive).

Kevin, it seems like you are saying that if a grasping at inherent existence is inactive, then this means it isn’t present. Is that true?
- 93
  
  tenpel on February 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm
  Reply
  
  “realization” – the question is the Tibetan term / Sanskrit term and its meaning. I think, realizations is a common term used for insight. Insights can be stable of unstable. However, in general, I think, a “true realization” should refer to a quality that cannot be overcome anymore by its antidote, something totally stable. So a true realization of conventional bodhicitta exists on the seceond level of the path of accumulation, a true realization of ultimate Bodhichitta on the 1st ground. A true realization of the freedom not to be born in the lower realms exists on the suparmundane quality level of the path of joining (the 2nd of five paths, and its fourth level).
  - 94
    
    tenpel on February 9, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    Reply
    
    Today Ringu Tulku Rinpoche explained what “a realization is and how it works”:
    [audio src="http://info-buddhism.com/q-a/mp3/WhatARealizationIs-HowItWorks.mp3" /]
95

Joanne on February 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Reply

Here’s another way to look at what I am questioning: Let’s assume that this definition of realizing bodhicitta, (which is based not on what it is but on what results from it) is nonetheless correct. According to Dharmaanarchist and Tenzin, “realizing” bodhicitta occurs with gold-like bodhicitta on the large path of accumulation (not the first bodhisattva level). So this brings me back to my original trouble, which is GKG’s statement that Serlingpa could not have “realized bodhichitta” while aspiring to become an “inherently existent Buddha.”

I am asking why not?

If one is still on the path of accumulation (or even preparation for that matter) then one can still be aspiring to become a Buddha under the belief system that sees an inherent self of person in that buddha. Is that not true? And one’s bodhicitta can still be very firm and powerful. So Kevin, on what level does one “realize bodhicitta”?

So I am still looking for a definition of “realizing bodhicitta” that explains this statement by GKG.

On the other hand, today I heard an explanation of all of this from HH Dalai Lama which makes a lot more sense to me. He discussed from many angles how the Cittamatrin view can be a very effective approach for some people and how some of the great mahasiddhas reached high levels of tantric realization while basing their tantric practice on the Chittamatrin philosophical view. I think on the tantric level this would be much more likely than on the sutric level, but that the Chittamatrin view can nonetheless be an effective approach for some people on all levels. That might be what GKG was trying to say?
96

Joanne on February 7, 2014 at 11:39 am
Reply

And Tenzin, in response to your comment above, it is exactly the meaning of “insight” which is usually associated with “realization” that I base my question on. Insight is something I would think would describe the wisdom side of the path, not the method side. While one might generate a strong bodhicitta based on insight into other’s suffering, that insight itself is based on an understanding of the nature of reality (suffering, impermanence, emptiness etc.). So that insight is actually attained through meditations on the wisdom aspects of the path. What actually makes the bodhicitta stable is the level of determination and aspiration. E.g. on the method side of the path, the practices done to strengthen and stabilize bodhicitta, such as the 7-point cause and effect and equalizing and exchanging self and others, are ones geared towards cultivating greater determination and aspiration etc. and greater qualities of love and compassion. They aren’t ones in which the practitioner cultivates greater insight.

Also, if you look at the 22 types of bodhicitta, each of them is accompanied by some quality, such as desire to do (1st), basis/aspiration (2nd), practice (4th), perfection of wisdom (10th), and perfection of prayer (12th) etc. Some of those types are accompanied by wisdom practices, some of them aren’t– are any of them actually comprised of wisdom/insight practices? I don’t think so, until one reaches a very advanced level of union, and that is why I question the use of the word “realize” in relation to conventional bodhicitta.
- 97
  
  john6747 on February 8, 2014 at 9:22 am
  Reply
  
  Click to access Bd3-K10Rinpoche.pdf
  - 98
    
    tenpel on February 8, 2014 at 9:39 am
    Reply
    
    Oh. Thank you. I didn’t know that the University of Hamburg posted this. Ringu Tulku is a really fine scholar and compassionate, kind and wise master. He holds among others also the Acharya degree from the Sanskrit University in Varanasi (a really hard study) – and he he jumped over 6 classes and did the final exams. He is incredible intelligent and very humble. Currently he is in Berlin and teaches the Eight Stanzas of Mind Training by Geshe Langri Tangpa.
99

Joanne on February 9, 2014 at 11:17 am
Reply

Good point, John. Nowhere does Shantideva speak of conventional bodhicitta in terms of something to be realized or to cultivate insight into.
- 100
  
  tenpel on February 10, 2014 at 10:45 am
  Reply
  
  Conventional bodhicitta has to be realized in the sense of that it becomes “uncontrived” which mainly means (when I got it correctly) it arises totally spontaneous without having to rely on a former analysis.
  
  BTW, Joanne, also the first stanza of Geshe Langri Tangpa’s Eight Verses of Mind Training is not well translated by Tharpa/ Kelsang Gyatso, and their translation doesn’t reveal the true meaning of it.
  They say:
  
  With the intention to attain
  The ultimate, supreme goal
  That surpasses even the wish-granting jewel,
  May I constantly cherish all living beings.
  
  However, the first stanza by Geshe Langri Tangpa teaches that all sentient beings are more precious than wishfulfilling (or a wishfulfilling) jewel/s because by relying on them one cultivates all qualities and finally awakens fully. It does not teach that the full awakening / enlightenment would “surpass even the wish-granting jewel” BUT that all sentient beings surpass wishfulfilling jewels. Alex Berzin’s translation is correct:
  
  (1) May I always cherish all limited beings
  By considering how far superior they are
  To wish-granting gems
  For actualizing the supreme aim.
  
  http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level3_lojong_material/specific_texts/eight_verse_attitude_training/8_cleansing_att.html
101

Joanne on February 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
Reply

To sum up (and then I will stop flogging this dead horse), in my thinking, there are two reasons why a Chittamatrin meditator is capable of correct meditation:

1. He/she can meditate on method aspects of the path, such as cultivating compassion etc. correctly because these do not rely upon understanding a full and correct view of emptiness (wisdom aspects of path).

2. He/she can meditate correctly on wisdom aspects of the path because the insights gained through the Chittamatrin philosophical system can become stepping stones towards a fuller insight/realization into the madyamaka philosophical system.

Both of these ideas have been very well expressed by writers here such as Tenzin, John and Kevin. However, GKG does not explain either of those perspectives in the passage about Serlingpa’s realization, in his commentary on Chandrakirti’s commentary on Nagarjuna. And that is my point. End of point. Thank you!
- 102
  
  Carol McQuire on February 17, 2014 at 11:27 pm
  Reply
  
  Joanne – somewhere in my NKT archive I have a copy of the ‘interim’ translation of Shantideva’s verses – in those days it was Lucy James who was doing this with him, as I remember. Would you like to see it?
  
  You can email me on carolmcquire@hotmail.com
  
  Wonderful conversations on here!!!!
103

Carol McQuire on February 15, 2014 at 4:22 am
Reply

Joanne – somewhere in my NKT archive I have a copy of the ‘interim’ translation of Shantideva’s verses – in those days it was Lucy James who was doing this with him, as I remember. Would you like to see it?

You can email me on carolmcquire@hotmail.com

Wonderful conversations on here!!!!
104

Carol McQuire on February 15, 2014 at 4:24 am
Reply

I look forward to, one day, having live chats about all this…
105

The NKT and Its Relationship With Truth: Should People in Glass Houses Throw Stones? | Tibetan Buddhism :: Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on March 12, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Reply

[…] months ago, I posted an article on this blog revealing significant flaws in the Tharpa Publications’ translation of Guide to the […]
106

Are the NKT Really Interested in Addressing Their Problems? | The Truth Behind the Protests and Smear Campaign Against the Dalai Lama on February 22, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Reply

[…] the end of 2013, I posted an article on another website revealing significant flaws in the Tharpa Publications’ translation of Guide […]
107

Tsongkhapafan on February 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
Reply

Hi Joanne,

There are three ways of translating a text – firstly a literal translation which is word for word what is in the root text. The problem with this is that it may be difficult to understand the meaning of the author because a lot of these texts are quite terse and the meaning is hidden. The second way, which gets around the problem of the first is to re-write a verse, giving the essential meaning but in different words to the original. The third way is to translate the intention of the author that one understands through meditative experience of practising the path. This might involve giving the meaning in quite different words, or even adding verses to make the text more practical, applicable or clear, and in this case it would come from one’s own spiritual insight into the practice of the six perfections.

The whole point of any Dharma text is to give instructions that touch the heart of the reader, inspire them and to convey the meaning in a clear and practical way. This may be achieved best by the third approach, which I believe was the approach taken on the translation of Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life.

Are you contesting the accuracy of the conveyance of the meaning of the text or merely the fact that it’s not a literal ‘word for word’ translation? If you prefer the approach of ‘word for word’ translation that’s fine because there are many translations out there for you to engage with. However, there are many, like myself, who will find the Tharpa translation of the text inspiring, accurate and beneficial. It’s ‘horses for courses’. I for one appreciate Geshe Kelsang’s union of being both a scholar and yogi and I find no fault with this text that comes from his vast meditative experience. We need realised authors who share the spiritual insights of great Masters like Shantideva and who can convey these rather than someone who just knows how to translate Tibetan!

	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…

Sources Used:

Rate this:

Share this:

Related