User talk:Kelsangpagpa

Hi Kelsang Pagpa, fine to see your interest for having an accurate article. The same interest is mine. I changed your changes to have it also more accurate. We can avoid "offshot", no problem, but the basis of NKT should be pointed out and that is that NKT is based on a selection on Gelug Teachings and GKG is a Gelug Lama, and his teacher too, isn't it? If you follow Atisha and Tsongkhapa you should not practice Shugden, they dind't taught it, is it? But however of course you can! I agree: "NKT is not part of Tibetan Buddhism at all" and added: "it is a new tradition based on Gelug teachings", isn't it?

NKT should not announce to be Kadampa Tradition or Kadampa Buddhism because that tradition doesn't exist anymore this is quite a serious mistake. Please encourage NKT to change that points in their official advertisemnts. And also they should please change their mode to count centers or not mention such topics. But your change of how you count them is now very good. Also I changed some things of your changes in Shugden Controv. but how ever I want not defeat you, we can discuss. I wish just to have an objective and accurate atrticle.

Perhaps you can now agree to some changes or reverts as being accurate? What changes else do you find necessary?

Fine to hear from you :-)) --Kt66 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Waiting for a response.
The following section of the shugden controversy talk page is directed towards you. I see you are active, and I am very interested in your position and response. I am honestly confused by the remark that you made. If I did not make myself clear regarding my confusion, I am happy to explain in greater detail. Thank-you, (20040302 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

Since everything lacks inherent existence
What follows is an examination of Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me..

Simply put, the assertion is a non sequitur. However, it may be that KP is missing out some of his logical steps - maybe he is wishing to say something like:


 * 1) Because everything lacks inherent existence, all phenomena are without essence.
 * 2) Because everything is without essence, all phenomena exist only according to the conventions of the world.
 * 3) There is a legitimate convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha.
 * 4) KP has been initiated into this convention.
 * 5) Therefore for KP, it is true that Dholgyal is a Buddha.

If we accept the legitimacy of the HYT vase, then it is hard to deny that Dholgyal is a Buddha - because within such a convention, everything and everybody is a Buddha. This doesn't help much for KP's cause, because I think he is attempting to say something more strong. If not, then he also agrees with the statement "Since everything lacks inherent existence, Hitler functions as a Buddha for me.", and (more relevantly) "Since everything lacks inherent existence, evil worldly spirits function as Buddhas for me." which does not help his cause in the current controversy!

Therefore, supposing that the 'legitimate convention' of point 3 above is a convention where it is not so that everything and everyone is a Buddha, then we can revise KP's assertion of point 3 to:

3. There is a legitimate convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not.

As NKT-IKBU acknowledge (I hope) the teachings of Je Rinpoche, we should examine what conventions are considered legitimate - certainly the mere belief in something does not make it legitimate! Such a view is nihilistic (e.g. "Mr Xen does not believe in Karma/Rebirth, so there is no rebirth or karma for him" is nihilism according to Buddhism).

The insight chapter of Je Rinpoche's LRCM (folio 313b Tibetan, p178 of English) states:

''How does one determine whether something exists conventionally? We hold that something exists conventionally:'' We hold that what fails to meet those criteria does not exist.
 * 1) if it is known to a conventional consciousness;
 * 2) if no other conventional valid cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known
 * 3) if reason that accurately analyses reality - that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists - does not contradict it.

We can discount point 3 here. However, points 1 and 2 are more difficult: Is the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha known to a conventional consciousness within the context of a convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not? Does no other conventional valid cognition within such a context contradict it's being as it is thus known?

In brief, the conventional existence of Dholgyal as a Buddha cannot be asserted unless one can prove these two points. Does Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me. help us with establishing either point 1 or 2? No. Not at all.

My tasks and questions for Gen Kelsang Pagpa are: Demonstrate that the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha is known to a conventional consciousness within the context of a convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not. Demonstrate that no other conventional valid cognition within such a context contradicts the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha. For whose consciousness is the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha known? What criteria are necessary for identifying who is, and who is not a Buddha? How does Dholgyal match against those criteria? How is the statement 'Since everything lacks [...]' meaningful?

Regardless, Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me. indicates a weak and possibly nihilistic position which is worrying. I am concerned that the understanding of both logic and the insight tradition of Je Rinpoche is particularly weak for someone who is the principal teacher at Vajravarahi Kadampa Centre. Moreover, if such weakness is exemplar of the NKT-IKBU, there must be major worries to be had about the organisation that claims to follow Je Rinpoche, Atisha, or the Madhyamaka tradition. (20040302 10:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for your response..
Dear Kelsang Pagpa, thank-you for your response; I would like to question you on a couple of your statements, - and please, I am interested in your own views on this - I am not attempting to railroad my views over yours. You tell me that "Since everything exists from the side of the mind, we can make of anything whatever we wish." and it appears that you really do hold that view - is that correct? The reason why I ask you to respond is as follows:

For example, imagine there is western person, called 'Mike', who does not believe in the existence of rebirth. According to my understanding of your statement, Mike can 'make of whatever he likes of' what happens after death, and, as it 'only exists from the side of his mind', he will actually not be reborn.

Therefore - from my understanding of your viewpoint, one can be liberated from the cycle of samsara merely by disbelieving in rebirth.

Now, according to Buddhism, such a view is known as nihilism, and does not lead to happy realms, let alone to enlightenment.

Of course, if you do not claim to be a Buddhist, you are allowed to have whatever views you like. But if you claim to be a Buddhist, then you should not have nihilist views. This is nihilist view is known as 'Wrong View' by all traditions, and is considered to be the most damaging non-virtue.

Of course, I hope I have misunderstood your meaning - that is why I am asking for some sort of clarity. Note that none of this has anything to do with the Madhyamaka - it is merely basic Buddhism.

Let us try to understand each other on this issue before moving onto anything as complex as emptiness! But, if we do, may I ask you if you accept the works of Tsongkhapa as authoritative?

The best to you, (20040302 13:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC))

not boring
Hi Kelsang-la. Thank you very much for taking part in the discussions and your courage to discuss the points about NKT/GKG with us. This is quite nice of you. Hopefully we'll learn all from that a lot, yours Kt66 20:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Kt66. It's been nice to meet you on these pages.  I'm sorry that you didn't find what you needed in NKT and I hope that you will find what you need in the tradition that you are now in.  I think your view of NKT and mine are quite different, as are the NKTs we have both experienced,  but the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same (laughs). I wish you every happiness, now and always.  With much love, --Kelsangpagpa 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * the same to you: I wish you every happiness, now and always. With much love, Kt66 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Greetings! If interested, please join WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism. I hope that it will assist us in ensuring articles are of high quality. Sylvain1972 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)