by tenpelNovember 3, 20153:54 pm

The fallacies of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) ordination rite

Here you can listen to an explanation by Geshe Tashi Tsering from the Jamyang Buddhist Centre in London who explains what went wrong with the NKT Buddhist ordination system and how Kelsang Gyatso misinterpreted the teachings of Tsongkhapa and Atisha regarding ordination.

In the next video you can listen to an explanation by Geshe Tashi Tsering where he explains the Buddhist ordination rite for the general public particularly for the people in NKT under Kelsang Gyatso. The video aims to educate people to judge for themselves whether they have received actual Buddhist ordination according to the Vinaya by the Buddha or not. The Australian Sangha Association (ASA) and the German Buddhist Monastic Association (DBO) released also statements regarding the NKT ordination.

I very much appreciate the effort and compassion of Venerable Geshe Tashi Tsering to explore this topic for the general public. However, Geshe Tashi errs here when he says that he thinks that there are two intact ordination lineages. There are at least three ordination lineages which are still intact: 1) Theravada, 2) Dharmagupta and 3) Mulasarvastavadin.

This blog has covered the topic of NKT ordination right from the start in 2008:

Offering Back Buddhist Vows 2012/06/26
NKT Ordination – Clarifying More Misunderstandings 2011/06/22
Update: New Kadampa Tradition – Ordination 2011/04/18
Are NKT monks and nuns authentic? July 27, 2008
How important is the Vinaya? 2008/07/25

39Comments

Add yours

1

dorjeshugdentruth on November 4, 2015 at 8:02 am
Reply

I suppose if these videos had any other motivation other than just jealousy and politics they might have served a purpose, but sadly he doesn’t seem to understand the essence of ordination, it’s just a bunch of rules and rituals for him. His arguments are always taking things out of context and generating very weak responses. It was the same at the SOAS Shugden panel discussion: he just gave weak and irrelevant arguments. I have learnt one useful thing from him though – If your motivation is politics, no good results will come, that’s clear.

He’s working well for the false Dalai Lama, whose only intention is to destroy Buddhism in this world.

I appreciated his quotes from Lama Tsongkhapa though, that’s the only good bit.
- 2
  
  tenpel on November 4, 2015 at 11:21 am
  Reply
  
  With respect to the intro of your comment, if you have no argument slander your opponent. Obviously you are not trained in good debate or good argument. You should not attack a person’s character but the argument (Ad hominem). Your character attack reflects your own mind.
  
  It is you who doesn’t have a clue about Vinaya and the rules because unlike Geshe Tashi Tsering you didn’t study it. Because he studied the Vinaya he can clearly see the fallacies of Kelsang Gyatso’s claims (note, that unlike you he still keeps respect for his opponent [in debate] calling him “Venerable”). Could you please explain and give evidence for your claims that “His arguments are always taking things out of context and generating very weak responses.” Its a mere claim without any substance or evidence. To be able to prove that he took things out of context you must be learned and you must have studied the Vinaya – which I guess you didn’t do 😉 That’s why you can’t come up with any good or sober argument but offer a bunch of mere allegations that aim to slander Geshe Tashi Tsering. Please show where there are “weak and irrelevant arguments”. What YOU are expressing is weak and irrelevant because it is not based on any evidence or any good argument just hot air.
  
  He’s working well for the false Dalai Lama, whose only intention is to destroy Buddhism in this world.
  
  Well, another baseless allegation. In that way you won’t win any debate but people will laugh about you because you are behaving childish.
  
  I appreciated his quotes from Lama Tsongkhapa though, that’s the only good bit.
  
  This is already a good start. With respect to Tsongkhapa, compare what Je Tsongkhapa said about the rules and what Kelsang Gyatso made out of it:
  The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean. None of the lists of vows Je Tsongkhapa lists for ordained is held by the NKT, therefore they don’t have a sober ordination that is in line with Buddha’s Vinaya or Tsonkhapa’s commentary on it. You follow a fabricated ordination that has no tradition behind it.
  - 3
    
    Marc on November 6, 2015 at 5:11 pm
    Reply
    
    “You should not attack a person’s character but the argument (Ad hominem).”
    
    :))
    
    You are either a quick learner Tenpel, or a hypocrite seeing the numerous ad hominems on this blog and on the other seven sites you maintain.
    
    TENzin PELjor exposed:
    https://tenpeljor.wordpress.com/tag/michael-jackel/
    http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/tenzin_peljor.html
    https://newkadampatradition.wordpress.com/tag/tenzin-peljor/
    - 4
      
      tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 2:36 pm
      Reply
      
      Show me one ad hominem attack I made, and I will accept your allegation and I will apologise. So far you haven’t shown one, you just claim as those blogs you link just claim without having evidence [funnily your sources of “information” you link here are full of ad hominem attacks] – going even so far to claim I am a Stasi trained spy etc, which are mere lies.
      
      Its a bit funny to see how you think: when other people or I criticise certain aspects or types of behaviour of SR or NKT then we are wrong and it is all only in our mind and there is no reality outside of our mind but when it comes to anonymous blogs and websites with slanderous and untrue claims this is of course correct, the truth, and proves me or others being “hypocrites”. Did’t you just say:
      
      It is so simple: when a person perceives another person or a phenomenon, it is a circular and reflexive awareness: it is emptiness looking at emptiness, illusion perceiving illusion. Not realizing this illusion (looking at illusion) as illusion is even worse, and far more subtle than conventional delusion.
      
      So why are you so inconsistent and apply this with respect to criticism against SR/NKT but not against people who oppose your pov?
      
      My observation and judgement still stands: you use the teachings on the ultimate to deny valid criticism with respect to things that are incorrect, negating them, claiming more or less its in the eye of the beholder and has no reference to reality. Additionally, when it comes to spins of conventional reality which support your pov or your picture of an enemy you forget your own explanations and those spins have suddenly some substance or basis in reality and are not expressions of the minds of those who expressed those POV’s.
      
      Mhm. This is exactly what is going on in the NKT, what I refer to as Nihilism, distortions and pseudo-Dharma and what I wanted to address in the post “Name only”: The dangerous attitude of Nihilism being taught in the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT).
      
      Again, this all only approves that the discussion is circling as I assumed it already: your main concept seems to be: 1) criticism against you/your group/pov/guru is the deluded outflaw of a mind and has no substance in reality, 2) but how you and others judge your opponents is not the deluded outflaw of a mind and has substance in reality. Therefore you and those who support your pov are always right and those who oppose you and your view are always wrong. If this is not circling what else is circling?
      - 5
        
        Marc on November 7, 2015 at 6:16 pm
        Reply
        
        “Show me one ad hominem attack I made, and I will accept your allegation and I will apologise”
        
        The “bla,bla” an ad hominem and a pejorative characterisation of one of my posts in the “Name only” BECAUSE you do this WITHOUT any substantion it defines itself as ad hominem and pejorative (like I already mentioned in that topic, so why ask again Tenpel?).
        
        Spare me your apologies, Tenpel-la. Just vow to YOURSELF to never use any pejorative terms and hominems again. And don’t break this samaya with your own nature-mind, Tenpel-la. How could one?
        
        😉
        
        6
        
        tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 8:39 pm
        Reply
        
        What has “unbounded wholeness of reality” to do with being able to discriminate a wrong from a correct action? In such a context of discussion “unbounded wholeness of reality” is bla bla. To call it bla bla in that context is not an ad hominem because this “unbounded wholeness of reality” serves only as distraction to come to terms with what’s right and what’s wrong and that conventional reality exists.
        
        Don’t know what else you find ad hominem. I didn’t refer to your behaviour as narrow and sectarian, did I? I referred it to things related to the NKT when I remember correctly and in that context it is correct, it still stands. And even if it were incorrect, are you the NKT so that you feel attacked when I criticise some of NKT’s narrow and sectarian attitudes?
        
        I spare you any apology because there is no basis for your claim ad hominem and therefore there is no need as far as I can see to excuse for something I did not do.
        
        Breaking my Samaya with my nature mind? What basis do you have for this allegation? Just another of your baseless claims?
        I think we end now the discussion. You made your points, I made mine.
        
        7
        
        Marc on November 8, 2015 at 10:27 pm
        
        “I didn’t refer to your behaviour as narrow and sectarian, did I?”
        
        It doesn’t matter if you refer to me or to someone else. To paraphrase you: you can call ad hominem “ad hominem” when it is an ad hominem. And just saying you do not use any ad hominems doesn’t make it so. From your point of view(!), and using your line of reasoning(!) and using your definition of ‘nihilism'(!), your denial that you use ad hominems is a form of nihilism.
        All pejorative language used to charaterize a person, or a person’s position is by definition ad hominem. So “narrow”, “stupid” and “cult” are pejorative and THEREFORE per se ad hominem.
        
        8
        
        tenpel on November 8, 2015 at 10:54 pm
        
        This is a burden of proof reversal. I asked you to give a clear and unmistaken example of ad hominem you have accused me to have made. Where is this example, where is the proof? There is none.
        
        To characterise a sectarian attitude as sectarian is not necessarily ad hominem. It depends on the context. For instance, in a case where someone wants to point out a destructive behaviour he is pointing to an existing phenomenon (if it is not a projection) and this is not an ad hominem where your ignore the arguments of the opponent and attack instead the person. Also if it were ad hominem to point out really existing (or even non-existing) faults of a person it follows almost all monastic procedures that deal with faulty modes of behaviour would be ad hominem.
        
        It follows too, it is you who run an ad hominem against me from the start because you accused me of ad hominem. Since you attack me of having done an ad hominem you yourself are committing the fault of ad hominem, because of using “pejorative language used to charaterize a person, or a person’s position”.
- 9
  
  dharmaanarchist on November 4, 2015 at 11:26 am
  Reply
  
  yeah…typical cult conspiracy theorist…..
  
  You have never even read or studied a text by Tsongkapa, because your own cult leader forbids them in his organisation, as you are not allowed to read any books that are not by him or his organisationj, you don’t have any translations of most of the important Tsongkapa texts. You know nothing about Tsongkapa’s work.
  
  Secondly, the current Dalai Lama underwent the necessary tests when he was found as a child and was enthroned by the holders of the lineage. That makes him THE true Dalai Lama. You might disagree with his opinions, but that doesn’t turn him into a fake. For example chancellor Merkel of Germany won the necessary election and was rightfully induced. Now I, and other citizens of Germany do not agree with many of her decisions. That still doesn’t change the fact that she is rightfully the chancellor of Germany.
  
  And you think that the monk Tenzin Gyatso is out to destroy Theravada buddhism in Sri Lanka and Burma, he is out to destroy the Zen schools in Japan, he wants to destroy mahayana and pure land buddhism in Thailand? He is out to destroy the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan buddhism? I follow mainly the Nyingma school of Tibetan buddhism, and I see absolutely ZERO efforts by Tenzin Gyatso to try doing that. On the contrary, all the post 1959 heads of the Nyingma tradition were on good terms with him. Why? Because they all knew that to survive in the exile situation all the Tibetan traditions had to work together to preserve the heritage of all the lineages.
  
  So, any proof for your absurd claims?
  
  Do you have any more substantial arguments, beyond the indoctrinated cult bla blah that you try to propagate?
  - 10
    
    Marc on November 7, 2015 at 6:17 pm
    Reply
    
    “yeah…typical cult conspiracy theorist…..”
    
    YAZZ!
    
    😉
    - 11
      
      dharmaanarchist on November 7, 2015 at 9:11 pm
      Reply
      
      Seems there is a bored troll out there with too much free time….
- 12
  
  Sam Hoff on November 4, 2015 at 2:52 pm
  Reply
  
  dorjeshugdentruth,
  
  How does the Dalai Lama control the Indian government to institute a ban?
- 13
  
  Bristol Lad on November 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm
  Reply
  
  “…sadly he doesn’t seem to understand the essence of ordination, it’s just a bunch of rules and rituals for him.”
  
  Your characterisation of Geshe Tashi Tsering and his understanding is very far from my experience. In fact because he understands the essence of ordination very well, Geshe-la is reluctant to give even Rabjung ordination to those without years (at least five) of background knowledge and preparation. Geshe-la’s mistake (if that’s what you want to call it) at the SOAS discussion was to assume that once he pointed out the inconsitency and lies that the NKT guy would acknowledge and correct his position. This is how debate in the monasteries work – to increase everyone’s understanding. Unfortunately the NKT guy (sorry, but I really can’t remember his name), just made a small comment that the lies didn’t matter and then continued to repeat them.
  
  The videos are simply there to help those people confused as to whether or not the NKT ordination is a valid ordination according to Vinaya. He gives his understanding and backs it up with relevant quotations from people that both the NKT and Gelugpas hold as being authoritative. I’m not sure why Geshe-la forgot the Dharmagupta ordination lineage, I know he is aware of it – chinese monastics are occasional welcome guests at Jamyang Centre in London.
  
  What I’ve often wondered is why the NKT monastics persist in wearing Tibetan-style robes – they claim that they have nothing to do with “corrupt Tibetan Buddhism” yet they still feel the need to wear robes designed in 15th century Tibet (the distinctive tongka etc. of Tibetan monastics became formalised around this time). Surely, the “Modern Buddhism” of the NKT should have more modern vestments its monastics?
- 14
  
  Namkhah on November 4, 2015 at 7:44 pm
  Reply
  
  “He’s working well for the false Dalai Lama, whose only intention is to destroy Buddhism in this world.”
  Oh, so that is why NKT Kelsangs dressed in their cheap western suits chased his car in London? NKT ought to face criminal charges for that stunt. Are you proud of this miscreant conduct?
  The time has come for rank and file NKT members expel the lunatic fringe leadership right from the top down: their fixed delusions have been manipulating them for far too long. They were not elected anyway–just bully and schmooze their way to power. Kick them out!
- 15
  
  Dorje on November 4, 2015 at 9:56 pm
  Reply
  
  dorjeshugdentruth, do you seriously believe the Dalai Lama’s “only intention is to destroy Buddhism in this world?”
  Do you have any idea how totally stupid that sounds? The Dalai Lama tirelessly teaches the Dharma all around the world. He has done more than just about any other teacher to bring Buddha’s teachings to those that may never had heard them before.
  Your inability to answer Geshe Tashi Tsering’s points against kelsang gyatso’s fabricated ordination speak more than your other bizarre assertions.
  
  I only hope people thinking of attending NKT classes read what you write here. It will really help in dissuading people from joining the strange personality cult of the invisible fraudulent geshe.
16

Marc on November 6, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Reply

On a deeper level all these so called “controversies in Buddhism” are skillful means in order to distinguish the spiritual materialists from the yogis… on BOTH sides of the line.

To realize the mind beyond suffering one only needs to be critcial to oneself, and judge ones own practice.
- 17
  
  tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 12:42 pm
  Reply
  
  Marc, in Tibetan Buddhism debate is an essential part as a means to come to certainty about conventional and ultimate reality. Also the Buddha pointed out the controversy related to Devadatta and corrected misbehaviour in his order. Being enlightened doesn’t mean you are not able to discriminate right from wrong.
  
  In general I agree: “To realize the mind beyond suffering one only needs to be critcial to oneself, and judge ones own practice.” but if this is applied to undermine valid criticism I don’t agree because then it becomes a means to support wrong developments and harm and this is neither compassionate nor in line with the teachings. The Buddha himself said that he doesn’t turn a blind eye on wrong modes of conducts and he asked his monks to do it likewise. In the monastic procedures there is also a procedure where others say to you which faults you made or they assume you made during the rain retreat, and they directly confront you with your faults or faults they assumed you made.
  
  Also, if a Gelong commits a major defeat the one who knows it must make it known to the other monks too and can’t be silent (“Concealing a defeat [Parajika] or reminder [Sanghadisesa] of another Gelong [Bhiskshu]”).
  
  I wonder what your background is. You appeared on the SR thread and I assumed you are a SR student but reading more and more of your comments it appears to me that you are an NKT follower who has a background where there are so many misunderstandings and distortions about reality, Dharma and Vinaya.
  - 18
    
    Marc on November 7, 2015 at 6:04 pm
    Reply
    
    Yazz.. debate is an essential part… but by definition a debate is not moderated like this blog. The real debate starts when moderation is removed from this blog to proof it’s openess and neutrailty.
    
    I’m just a no no-nonsense Dutchy, Tenpel. No lineage is my lineage, all apearrances are my teacher, all my mental experiences are my meditation, and the mind’s natural state is my refuge. It is a simple as that! :))
    
    I met and studied with teachers from all Tibetan Buddhist schools and pre-buddhist school. So don’t try to box me in and start to frame things, Tenpel. Just put me in your “Dutchy box” if that is more convenient for you. But I can assure you that I have never even visited a NKT centre. I first met Buddhism in Amsterdam when HHDL visted Amsterdam in 1986. I waved at him, he waved back. That’s when it all started and I’m still at the beginning. Lucky me. 😉
    And the more I judge myself, the harder it becomes to judge others, and the easier it becomes to dissolve all my mental apearences “back” into their essential baseless base (from which they never really left).
19

Marc on November 7, 2015 at 9:38 am
Reply

“and the German Buddhist Monastic Association (DBO) released also statements regarding the NKT ordination.”

Also… ja, ja… 😉 And who is behind the DBO? It is our beloved topic starter! See: http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/the_german_buddhist_monastic_association.html
How more circular can one’s reasoning get, by referring to oneself as “source”…. that “also” has released a statement.

Sent at 7-11-2015 at 9:38 GMT
- 20
  
  tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm
  Reply
  
  Marc, this is an elected body of monastics, and yes I am part of it. But it was the board who released and stands for the statement. Moreover, it is in line with the Vinaya. What NKT claims is not in line with the Vinaya. So I am not “referring to myself as the source” because this is not a private statement by myself but I refer to a statement by a monastic body which I am part of. If you check more deeply you will see that what the DBO says is in line with what the ASA said about five years before this statement was released, and that it is in line with what Geshe Tashi says and what anybody who either studied or has knowledge of the Vinaya is highly likely going to say.
21

TheDevilsAdvocate on November 7, 2015 at 10:36 am
Reply

Is returning one’s vows as a monk two times and taking ordination for a third time according to Vinaya?

Just a question…
- 22
  
  tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 11:21 am
  Reply
  
  As far as I know there is the possibility to return your monastic vows and to take ordination later again. How this is dealt with depends on the Vinaya tradition and the monastic communities. In the Theravada it is even possible after a Parajika (having committed a breach of one of the four “root vows”) to reordain but you can only reordain to the level of a Sramanera (Novice) and never to a fully ordained monk. However, this is not possible in the Tibetan Vinaya tradition as far as I know.
  
  In the Tibetan tradition ist is also possible to give back vows of a certain level (e.g. fully ordained vows, Bhikkshu) and to hold the vows as a novice ordained, and then to receive full ordination again. So there are certain possibilities. To answer you question:
  
  Is returning one’s vows as a monk two times and taking ordination for a third time according to Vinaya?
  
  I can neither say yes or no. I lack the knowledge to answer this. If you seek clarity ask any Geshe or someone who studied the Vinaya in full and keep in mind that there differences in the three existing Vinaya lineages.
23

TheDevilsAdvocate on November 7, 2015 at 10:58 am
Reply

As a beginner’s mind I have some more questions:

1. Is critisising other buddhist schools in accordance with the bodhisattva vows?

2. Is one’s enemy ones highest teacher in patience according to lo.jong?

3. Who is in need of more compassion, the murderer or the murdred?

4. Do buddhist monks practice themselves, or merely teach practice to others?

5. What happened to the Tibetan yogis?
- 24
  
  tenpel on November 7, 2015 at 11:57 am
  Reply
  
  1. Is critisising other buddhist schools in accordance with the bodhisattva vows?
  
  There is no main Bodhisattva vow which says explicitly so, is there? Also the root vows of Vajrayana do not explicitly state this. However, the Vajrayana root vows explicitly state not “Deriding our own or others’ tenets”. Berzin comments “This is the same as the sixth bodhisattva root downfall, forsaking the holy Dharma …”. Which he comments is:
  
  (6) Forsaking the holy Dharma
  
  Here the downfall is to repudiate or, by voicing our opinions, cause others to repudiate that the scriptural teachings of the shravaka (nyan-thos), pratyekabuddha (rang-rgyal), or bodhisattva vehicles are the Buddha’s words. Shravakas are those who listen to a Buddha’s teachings while they are still extant, while pratyekabuddhas are self-evolving practitioners who live primarily during dark ages when the Dharma is no longer directly available. To make spiritual progress, they rely on intuitive understanding gained from study and practice conducted during previous lives. The teachings for both of them collectively constitute the Hinayana, or “modest vehicle” for gaining personal liberation from samsara. The Mahayana vehicle emphasizes methods for attaining full enlightenment. Denying that all or just certain scriptures of either vehicle derive from the Buddha is a root downfall.
  
  However, criticism to certain aspects of tenets of Buddhist schools or their interpretations has always existed. Ringu Tulku states:
  
  Shakyamuni Buddha forbade his students to criticize others, even the teachings and teachers of other religions and cultures. This directive was so strong and unambiguous that in the Introduction to the Middle Way, Chandrakirti felt compelled to defend Nagarjunas Madhyamaka treatises by saying:
  
  “If, in trying to understand the truth, one dispels misunderstandings, and therefore some philosophies cannot remain intact, that should not be considered as criticizing others’ views.”
  
  Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen Pal Zangpo wrote in his »Dom gsum rab dbye«:
  
  I have love for all beings
  and I do not speak ill of anyone.
  
  If, perchance, I have lost my composure
  and disparaged another, I renounce and confess that misdeed.
  
  Whether the Noble Doctrine
  has been misunderstood or correctly understood
  is a theme that affects our long-term future destinations,
  so if someone calls the positive and negative assessment of these
  ›hostility‹, he is himself at fault.
  
  Does one label as ›hostily‹
  all the refutations of all false doctrines –
  held by non-Buddhists and Buddhists alike –
  that were made by all the wise men such Nagarjuna,
  Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharmakirti?
  
  Were all the Fully Enlightened Ones
  merely jealous when they refuted
  demons and non-Buddhist sectarians?
  
  The wise are guides for blind fools,
  and if you call it ›hostily‹ to lead them
  well in matters of correct or mistaken teachings,
  how, then, is Buddhism to be henceforth preserved?
  
  A guide holds back the blind
  from stepping over precipices
  and leads them along a safe path.
  Is that jealousy? If so, then how else
  are the blind to be led?
  
  If you say that it is due to a physician’s hostility
  or jealousy that he urges,
  ‘Stop eating the foods that hurt your body
  and eat only those that help’
  then how else are the ill to be healed?
  
  If to distinguish between true
  and false teachings is to be called
  ›hostility‹ and ›jealousy‹, then just how else are beings to be rescued
  from the ocean of Samsara?
  
  2. Is one’s enemy ones highest teacher in patience according to lo.jong?
  
  You can see it that way, yes.
  
  3. Who is in need of more compassion, the murderer or the murdred?
  
  Compassion in general should be equal to each sentient being, that’s why in Mahayana there is talk about impartial compassion, isn’t it? However, practically seen, at times one might feel stronger compassion to the one or the other party. However, in Mahayana when a highly realised Bodhisattva (some texts speak of someone of at least on the path of preparation) considers the killing of a tyrant, the compassion is directed to the tyrant and not to his victims. Because he is the object to be killed by the Bodhisattva and the Bodhisattva must make sure to have a pure motivation when doing this unwholsome deed.
  
  So if you ask me, I think you should have equal compassion to both, victim and murder. But some oral teachings say, you should have more compassion to the murder because he created the causes for new suffering and the victim exhausted the causes for being killed. However, my thought is, the victim, being killed, will quite likely have a negative mind about what’s going on and is therefore also creating new causes for suffering parallel to the suffering of being killed, and maybe having a bad rebirth right after s/he died because s/he dies with a very anxious and deluded mind …
  
  4. Do buddhist monks practice themselves, or merely teach practice to others?
  A monk has at least to practice to keep his vows, especially the four Parajikas (“root vows”), otherwise he cannot continue to be a monk. So a monk – if he takes his ordination seriously in any way – will always have a training in ethics. There are monks who have a wider scope of practice or a narrower scope of practice, there are monks who teach and who don’t teach …
  
  5. What happened to the Tibetan yogis?
  
  They still exist. Garchen Rinpoche, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche or Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche to name only a few who come to my mind are still in our world.
  - 25
    
    Marc on November 7, 2015 at 9:18 pm
    Reply
    
    You are clear about all points… but clearly miss the point TheDevilsAdvoacte is making. His pseudonyme could have been an indictation, Tenpel…
26

Django Unchained on November 7, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Reply

The NKT is only a money making pyramid scheme using the guise of Buddhism.
27

Tsongkhapa Weeps | The Truth Behind the Protests and Smear Campaign Against the Dalai Lama on November 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Reply

[…] gathering, given that none of Tsongkhapa’s major texts are part of the curriculum. Recently, Geshe Tashi spoke for some time on Youtube regarding ordination within the NKT. He quoted from Tsongkhapa himself and demonstrated how Kelsang […]
28

Has Geshe-la Broken His Bodhisattva Vow? | The Truth Behind the Protests and Smear Campaign Against the Dalai Lama on November 11, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Reply

[…] Here is the statement by Kelsang Gyatso that concerns me. It was given in 1999 during an ordination ceremony, as his reason for creating his own, abbreviated ordination within the NKT (as quoted by Geshe Tashi Tsering): […]
29

Sam Hoff on December 1, 2015 at 7:01 pm
Reply

Yogis are non-monks like Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse, Sakya Trizin etc.

Gelugs are monks.
- 30
  
  tenpel on December 2, 2015 at 2:14 pm
  Reply
  
  Sam, your horizon seems to be a bit narrow. Among the yogis are also monks and nuns, including in the Nyingma, Kagyue and Sakya schools.
  - 31
    
    Sam Hoff on December 2, 2015 at 10:41 pm
    Reply
    
    If you are a monk, you cannot practice karmamudra.
    
    This is why Tsongkhapa himself didn’t practice karmamudra.
    - 32
      
      tenpel on December 2, 2015 at 11:03 pm
      Reply
      
      In the Kagyue Tradition and Sakya Tradition you can. You can also do it in the Gelug school but you must have a high level of realisation.
      At that level there is no fault. However, Gelugpas rather likely might follow Tsongkhapa’s example, and either they use the intermediate state to attain the union or they could also give back their vows too. There is also discussion that you can attain certain levels without karma mudra.
      - 33
        
        Sam Hoff on December 3, 2015 at 6:42 am
        Reply
        
        A monk can’t practice karmamudra. Period. End of story.
        
        34
        
        tenpel on December 3, 2015 at 12:41 pm
        Reply
        
        You err.
        
        35
        
        Sam Hoff on December 3, 2015 at 5:12 pm
        
        Read this thread. Malcolm is a Sakya Loppon:
        
        http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16213
        
        36
        
        tenpel on December 3, 2015 at 8:06 pm
        
        What ever he says, I received tantric teachings within Gelug school from authentic masters and scriptures and I know what I say. The point is, this is not a public topic, therefore I won’t engage in public discussion.
        
        37
        
        Bristol Lad on December 4, 2015 at 8:52 am
        
        Sam,
        I’ve read Malcolm’s posts before – he doesn’t support your position. In fact the only question re-reading that thread raised for me is: are you ConradTree on Dharma Wheel?
      - 38
        
        Bristol Lad on December 3, 2015 at 9:26 am
        Reply
        
        Sam,
        Serkhong Dorje Chang, the father of Tsenshab Serkhong Rinpoche who was one the 7 debate partners for HHDL, was an example of a Gelugpa monk and yogi. Still, he asked the 13th Dalai Lama for permission beforehand who asked for proof of his level of realisation.
        Also, as I’m sure you’d agree, there is more to being a yogi than practising karma mudra!
        
        39
        
        tenpel on December 3, 2015 at 12:45 pm
        Reply
        
        ha ha, yes, there “there is more to being a yogi than practising karma mudra!”
        The story with Serkong Dorje Chang continues, to prove his level of realization he made knots in yak horns. Also he had fruits unknown and said they are from Shambala …

	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	tenpel on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Mark Dunlop on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	Vincent Fletcher on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	Vincent Fletcher on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	tenpel on Expressions of Whiteness in Bu…

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related