Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 7

Invalid ordination lineage
I think that the article on the ordiantion should mention that the NKT ordination is invalid because it does not constitute a full ordination, nor the ordination of a novice monk rather simply saying that it differs from other Tibetan lineages. Also, I think we should have a breif explanation on the Shugden controversy. I have noticed that Lama Yeshe has been shown to support Shugden and while I understand that he was a practitioner, he stopped after His Holiness' requests. Jmlee369 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Jmlee369, the ordination is not invalid. The ordination in NKT is described in the Pratimoksha Sutras as a lay follower's ordination with celebacy. So it is a valid lay followers ordination. In the Pratimoksha it is explicit mentioned that a lay follower can also receive the celebacy vow. To say it is different from ALL the Buddhist tradtions is a generalisation and maybe wrong. So for instance in Japanese Buddhism monks were forced by the government to marry, so their ordination is different from the Buddha's Vinaya as well. The Shugden topic is yet mentioned and introduced in detail in the related article on Shugden. Do you have further suggestions? regards, kt66

Yes, lay practitoners can uphold celibacy but if they are lay practitioners, why are they wearing the robes of the Sangha? Also, the other few vows have no basis either. Japanese monks accept that they are not upholders of the Vinaya and do not claim to be bikshus. Rather, they call themselves 'preists'. Also, Geshe Kelsang could not have ordained bikshus without 5 others who have kept their vows for ten years.Jmlee369 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This kind of ordination as GKG gives one can in the Inian-Tibetan system refer to as Rabjung ordination, an approach to step into the order (mostly given as a temporary ordination for children or some westerners) whereas you are not seen as a member of the order, if you are a mere Rabjung. You do not present the order. For Rabjungs it is allowed to wear robes and they should behave like a monk (this inlcudes respect to the full members of the order). NKT monks do not claim they are Bhikshus or Novices, they refer to themselves just as monks. However it is is not allowed for Rabjungs to wear the yellow upper robe as they do, it is much more against the Vinaya to wear them while accusing a Bhikshu in public of lying (as done with HH Dalai Lama) and so on. Usually Rabjungs can not take part in the forthnightly confession ritual (tib. "Sojong") because the are not seen as members of the order. GKG has created for his Rabjungs however a similar procedere which is referred in NKT also as "Sojong" but is different from the traditional ritual. However, NKT monks do not claim to uphold the Vinaya, they claim the Vinaya is in Geshe Kelsangs Lamrim book and condensed in their 10 vows - what is obvoius not the case and is a simplification. GKG do not ordain his followers to Bhikshus, for this he would - as you still said - need minimum five Bhikshus who were ten years full members of the order with pure conduct. As far as I know in NKT there is only GKG as a full monk and maybe one more as I heard, in the past ordained by HHDL. So GKG just ordains people as Rabjungs, this is allowed as he does it. However it would be honest to tell people that they by this are not real monks and nuns, just approaching the order. regards, kt66

Ah, but you see, the word monk used in the context of Tibetan Buddhist associated topics refer to those who are considered to be part of the Sangha, fully ordained Bikshus. I'm not so sure about novices though. However, the vows observed by members of the NKT are not the Rabjung vows. The condensation of the Vinaya itself would require the agreement from all traditions of Buddhism, therefore this is an invalid ordination due to the additional vows that changed the rabjung vows. Jmlee369 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * as far as I know, teachers who give Rabjung ordiantion may add some additional vows. However it is made clear in the article what NKT monks and nuns receive and that this is according to what is described as lay ordiantion in the Pratimoksha and different from what monks and nuns receive if they want to be a part of the order of the Buddha. The ordination is in so far not invalid, that Geshe Kelsang has the lieneage of the Pratimoksha and can give the lay ordination to his followers. If he is an approriate abbot, this is another question, maybe a personal, maybe a gerenral question. I think we can resolve that stuff not better in the article as it is now, or do you have any suggestion to improve it? "Invalid ordination" I can not accept, as commented yet. Many Regards kt66

If he only has the ability to pass on lay precepts but not act as an preceptor of other vows, then how can he ordain monks and nuns who wear the robes of the Sangha? That is what makes his Sangha invalid. Jmlee369 09:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If he has the ability and lineage of those five vows he can pass them, there is nothing invalid, sorry. Wearing robes without monks vows is also accepted in the Tibetan lineage for Rabjungs, however wearing the yellow upper robe is not allowed to them, as far as I know. The term invalid is not apply able to that situation. Regards, --Kt66 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the passing of the five vows are invalid in the NKT, what I'm saying is that the fact that the monks and nuns who wear the yellow robe belong to an invalid lineage due to that fact. Jmlee369 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They hold the five lay followers lineage. Wearing robes can be seen as questionable. --Kt66 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To make the point more clear, I changed that passage, made it more precise and included the reference in a commentary line. --Kt66 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Financing of the NKT
This part is quite surfaced and hides some facts, so I will add a passage based on WP:reliable sources and the facts. u:E1 has deleted a lot of that account and I agreed with it, however now it gives not the full picture and is incomplete, so I"ll try improving that. kt66
 * I finshed it now. Although NKT members may not like this passage it is completely the fact and these facts are stated in different sources. Also I tried to explain it moderate and didn't mentioned the much critisism this all has drawn by past members. I didn't mention that interest free loans are asked for when there is even no basis of paying it back and some are forced (by these outer circumstances) to give it later freely as a "generous donation". - although there is a WP:reliable source for it. See Bunting, noting:
 * ''But there was no provision to pay back the loans in the business plan; when questioned, the centre involved said they only paid back loans if really pushed. "But the whole teaching makes you ashamed to push. You give money to gain merit and you're supposed to give willingly to Kelsang. The argument is that if you can afford to give Kelsang then you don't need the money anyway," she says. "I knew of one person who had got his parents to lend him Pound 2,000. They asked me for Pound 500 and they asked me to take a loan from the bank. They were very insistent; they told me I'd been picked out by Kelsang as a leader - I'd never met him but, of course, he knows everything anyway."
 * However some of the points have to been mentioned, not mentioning some main points of the ways how the NKT income is raised, especially "merit", "will" and "housing benefit", I see as inappropreate. User:2ndMarch (the one who only used digits as his username) has raised up this topic in the past, yet, see the archived talk pages. kt66

=templates= I removed the Clean up after AfD. It has been done by user:excellentone and me. What do the editors/readers think about the need of the NPOV and Quotefarm templates?
 * Can the NPOV-check template be removed?
 * Is there still NPOV in the article?

I think the quotefarm template maybe can be removed as well.
 * Is there a need for it any more? If yes what we can do? There are a lot of full citations but this is suggested if the subject matter is controversial discussed.

So what do you think? Thank you, --Kt66 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * no comment...mhm, so I"ll remove them. kt66

=replies of Geshe Kelsang= Due to that Geshe Kelsang has replied to many of the controversial points, I add here his views and statements. Do you agree with this or miss something or disagree with this addition? Regards --Kt66 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ordination and Pratimoksha vows
I am correcting a factual error in the text which states that: The first five vows of NKT ordination are identical to the five Pratimoksha vows of a lay follower, including celibacy. A more correct statement is: The first five vows of NKT ordination are broadly similar to the five Pratimoksha vows of a lay follower, except include celibacy whereas a lay person guards against "sexual misconduct" which is basically about thinking of others. The ordination vows include "sexual conduct", which implies maintaining celibacy. A lay person does not have to take this vow, and so it is not part of the Pratimoksha vows. The object of "sexual misconduct" is defined as: anyone else's partner, our own parent, a child, anyone with a vow of celibacy, pregnant women, animals, or anyone else who does not consent. Many lay followers of the NKT who have taken Pratimoksha vows have partners. (Ethicaljohn 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

It seems Kt66 does not accept this point. I am referring to the Pratimoksha vows as offered to lay NKT followers which would be classed as the 4th type of vow as defined on the Pratimoksha page. Perhaps there should be an additional section here to draw out the difference between a lay follower and one who chooses ordination. (Ethicaljohn 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Dear Ethicaljohn, thank you for your patience and effort! Maybe we have a misunderstanding. I am no native English speaker. The first five vows of NKT monks and nuns ordination are exactly the same as described as the sixth type of a lay follower (we are clear about this fact, aren't we?). The lay followers in NKT can take all seven types of lay followers vow. If all NKT lay followers take the same five vows as the fourth type they can have partners, no problem. In stating that this is the case there is no confusion about the facts but in stating: The first five vows of NKT ordination are broadly similar to the five Pratimoksha vows of a lay follower, except include celibacy there is confusion because they are not "broadly similar", they are "exactly the same" as the sixth type lay follower (who holds also celibacy). These first five vows of NKT ordination are lay followers vows, the vows of a lay follower who holds celibacy, listed as the sixth type. Maybe we ask Magic Pickle for help if we further disagree maybe we can not come together now, because we both have a different angle to the subject. But until now I have seen my version as correct and according to the facts. --Kt66 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Message to KT66
If you spent as much time in single pointed concentration on Bodhichitta as you do editing this article you would be enlightened. Love, Akshobhya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.14.220 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Perhaps editing is an important step along the path, though. Magic Pickle 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Akshobhya, indeed Bodhichitta a very important point. Bodhichitta is also very hard to acquire. Personal notes please leave at my talk page. Many Regards, --Kt66 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But if he spent his time focusing on the Bodhicitta with his heart set on his own enlightenment he wouldn't get very far! I support his efforts to maintain this article for the sake of all wikipedia users. Rupa zero 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)