Talk:Kadam (Tibetan Buddhism)/Archive 1

Latest changes

As an observer who is neither a Gelugpa nor an NKT practicioner, I've tried to help NPOV this article and make it a little more clear in places, along with spelling corrections. --GZ 10/7/05

Fine, thank you. Relating to the last section I can not agree. The sentences were a compromise even made together with NKT. The problem in this section is, that NKT is misusing the name Kadampa Tradition or Kadampa Buddhism for their presentation of the teachings and by this people and reader are always confused about it, so this section have to be quite clear. I changed thats why back to the former one and added the last sentence. Do you can agree? Kt66 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I made also some more changes to make it more clear. Kt66 09:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem as I see it with the new paragraph is that NKT practictioners do see themselves as Kadampas. I don't think it's appropriate for an NPOV article to come out and say "they're wrong, they aren't Kadampas." There are arguments for both sides.

The other question that perhaps could be addressed more clearly is: what happened to the old Kadampas? Were they all absorbed into the Gelug lineage, or not? This is not addressed.--GZ 10/10/05

I've reverted the clarity changes you made. I don't mean any offence when I say that it is clear that English is not your first language. There were grammatical errors in the prose and the language was just generally awkward. This is definitely not intended as an insult because I certainly don't speak a second language myself, but the English in the article should be proper. If there is some sort of factual shortcoming to my contribution please let me know. --GZ 10/10//05

HI GZ, thank you for your patience and insisting on improving the article. I can agree. Your questions: what happened to the old Kadampas? Were they all absorbed into the Gelug lineage, or not?

• Normaly it is emphasised that the Kadampa lineage was absorbed into Gelug school and at Tsongkhapas time were nearly disapperead. But it is to add, that Gampopa came from the Old Kadampas too and also brought the lineage of the Old Kadampas (on the graded path (Lamrim), Lojong (essential Bodhicitta teachings), Vinaya) into the Kagyu school and combined it with the Mahamudra teachings received by his master Milarepa.
• I found out the following and put it also in the article: "Nowadays the Gelug Tradition keeps and transmits the Kadampa-lineage of the Scriptural Traditions of the Six Canonical Texts. Together with Dagpo Kagyu Tradition they keep and transmit the The Pith Instructions of the Sixteen Essences and the Dagpo Kagyu Tradition keeps and tranmits the Key Instructions of the Four Noble Truths." This is a summerize and was taken from a note of the Dagpo Kagyu Lineage and can be found in the book: "The Great Path of Awakening: The Classic Guide to Using the Mahayana Buddhist Slogans to Tame the Mind Andawaken the Heart" by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye an accepted outstanding Buddhist Authority.
• The Key Instructions of the Containers - is about the Four Nobel Truths
• The Six Canonical Texts - are mentioned in the article and below
• The Pith Instructions of the Sixteen Essences - I don't know

Who keeps the Old Kadampa lineage?

• "The Teachings Of The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas That Adorn The Body" (the four Divinities are Buddha Shakyamuni, Avalokiteshvara, Green Tara and Acala)
• "The Three Containers That Adorn The Speech" (the Three Containers are the three baskets of the scripture and including the Vinaya of monastic discipline, the Sutras which explain the Four Nobel Truths and the Abidharma Teachings, which describe the sentient beings and their world of experiences)

and

• "The Three Disciplines That Adorn The Consciousness". (Ethic, Concentration and Wisdom)

I can't tell who keep it. But I saw that the Gelug Traditon keep the lineage of the Divinitie Acala, the other deities and also transmit it.

What I can really not agree as a matter of fact is that NKT is the same or the continuation of the Old Kadampa Lineage, there is really missing to much of the main points of the Kadampa lineage and also they do not keep it the whole. They have some fractions of it and try to focus on some mainpoints but this is not the Kadampa lineage this is just a behaviour, an idea. As I stated if they would be the Kadampa lineage they would just destroy it by working not accordingly to the lineage and putting out many of the teachings. If there is a need to discuss this for the article, I think we should do this for the benefit of the reader. Kt66 13:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration. I think the article does a good job of making clear that the Kadampa teachings were preserved and held by the Gelug lineage, the Kagyu lineage and others. However, there is also the issue of "Kadampa" as an term of identity. What I mean to say, it seems to me that in, for example, 1250 AD, an observer could go to Tibet, ask various people to which school they belong, some would reply, "I'm a Kadampa." Whereas if one did that in 1750 AD, no one would say "I'm a Kadampa," even if they followed Kadampa teachings. They would say "I'm a Gelugpa" or "I'm a Kagyupa." So the question is - what happened? Likewise, what happened to the monasteries that were known as "Kadampa" monasteries? Did they all become Gelug, or did they simply fade away?

Regarding NKT, I suggest we change the paragraph as follows:

"In the 1990s, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Dge-shes Bskal-bzang Rgya-mtsho), a monk trained at Sera Monastery, a Gelug university, founded a new western organisation which he named the "New Kadampa Tradition." There is disagreement as to whether or not this group propogates the Ancient Kadampa lineage as they claim; please see that page for further discussion." --GZ 10/11/05

---

Hi there GZ. I think there is more to clarify before we can take this paragraph. As pointed out by 2nd March, there is a difference to see yourself as a practitioner who follow the Kadampa style of applying teachings and the fact of possessing the Kadampa lineage. So these two points have to been clarified.

• Just to follow the style of the Kadampa way of applying teachings (of the three kinds of persons) and emphasise the teachings on
  • Vinaya
  • death and impermannence
  • Refuge to the Three Jewels
  • compassion / Bodhiccitta & training as a Bodhisattva
  • Wisdom (emptiness)

- these are mainly Sutra Teachings - you can name yourself a "Kadampa".

• But to keep the lineage and possess the legacy of the Old Kadampa lineage and teach, practice and transmit it as done by Old Kadampas is something complete different.

So it has to been discussed:

• • what is a lineage?
  • what is the kadampa lineage? (the defining characteristics of it)
  • what means to possess and keep a lineage or to be the continuation of a lineage?

I can not step in all the points, just some main remarks to it:

So what is with the legacy of the Ancient Kadampa Lineage? It is absorbed into all the Four Tibetan Buddhist Schools and does not exist outsite of them as a different fifth lineage.

You find the heritage of the Kadampas in those four Tibetan Buddhist lineages. I do not know if the heritage does exist completely nowadays. If you want to be a follower of the Old Kadampas or want to say you are the continuation of it you must posess (this means you got the transmission of it) the Lineages of the different teachings which are the defining characteristics of the Kadampa Lineage.

Today no knower of Indian-Tibetan Buddhism would say or agree that the Ancient Kadampa Tradition does still exist. I never heard this, nobody taught it, nobody sees it like this - except NKT.

Ok lets look on NKT: Do they posess the legacy of the Kadampas? Firstly there is to state as a fact they come from Gelug School, Kadampa Tradition is also absorbed into that. Would a knower of the Gelugpas or Tibetan Buddhism agree NKT keep the heritage of the Gelugpas? Answer: No. Because to many main important characteristics of the Gelugpa Tradition are missed (see the critics section in the article New Kadampa Tradition) and the related discussion.

If they are not keeping the legacy of the Gelugpas how than they can keep the legacy of the Ancient Kadampa Tradition?

The main points I summerized in the discussion board below and are discussed there.

Just to summerize shortly:

From the Ancient Kadampa Tradition :

• • They do not keep the deity Acala,
  • They do not keep the Vinaya (most emphasised by Atisha & Tsongkhapa),
  • they study just one text of the Six Canonical Texts
  • They do not keep Kalachakra Tantra
  • They do not keep The Pith Instructions of the Sixteen Essences
  • TThey do not keep The Teachings Of The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas That Adorn The Body
  • They do not keep The Three Containers That Adorn The Speech
  • They do not keep The Three Disciplines That Adorn The Consciousness

most of them are not even ever heard by NKT.

• • Also, the Ancient Kadampa Tradition emphasised very much the Sutras of the Buddha. NKT study, recite and know just one Sutra of the Buddha and emphasise a understanding of Tantric Guru Yoga, whereas Atisha taught Tantra very secret and hidden and emphasised Refuge and Bodhicitta.

One main point of keeping a lineage, the oral transmission (tib. Lungh) is missing. So how they can than be the legacy, how they can claim to be the continuation of the Ancient Kadampa Lineage? Ask just some Geshes, Tibetologists or some Tibetan Buddhist Teachers they would laugh on this idea.

So what than is NKT? It is just a new Organisation, named by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as New Kadampa Tradition and is based on a variety of Gelug Teachings, that's it. This is neutral, a matter of fact, according to reality. And the personal Buddhist teachings of GKG were mostly written down in books and build the basis of NKT. GKG, his books and his new-ordination is also the basis of the Sangha. So NKT follow GKG, his books/Teachings and his new ordination-followers. This is not Kadampa legacy. This is just his own, isn't it? GKG himself wanted just to inpsire his students by the pure examples of the Old Kadmapas, but refering to this archetype makes NKT not to the Ancient Kadampa Tradition.

But, if a NKT pracitioner really follows the Kadampa style of practicing he can name himself as being a Kadampa, why not?

I think it is quite clear that the problem is coming from a complete other side: GKG tried to establish something "independent", which only he himself is responsible for, is only ruled by himself, nobody else, something which is independent from all other Buddhists, especially Tibetan Buddhists. (Out of different reasons.)

But this is not possible. Buddha taught - and this can be recognized clearly - all things are interconnected, completely dependent upon different parts, causes and conditions. All the teachings and Traditions are completely interdependent, especially the Sangha Community is completely dependent and needs each other. But he wanted to be independent, so he established something new, based on his understandings of Buddhism and Westeners. But to establish this you need a root otherwise people don't believe you. He didn't want to say his roots are Gelugpa, nor that he follows the Gelugpas, so he was under the force to find something "new" which also has a root and basis. This task was done by naming "New" "Kadampa" (not Gelugpa) and "Tradition". Later NKT developed the idea of being Kadampa Buddhism . But this will never solve the problem of naming things as what they aren't and try to be "independent", being both: "new" and "old" and the like.

His whish that NKT is his own, "independent" from other Buddhists (or only depend on him), was also expressed by him and is one of the main emphasised points within NKT... also Gen Kelsang Pagpa pointed this out.

Just to think about: I was present when some criticism on NKT was made. Then NKT people got bad feelings. Someone asked: But who is NKT? Geshe Kelsang Gyatso replied: "Me. I'm NKT." So NKT is more "Geshe Kelsang Gyatsoism" as someone stated at Belifenet isn't it?

Ok. Are there some points not correct, not clear or should looked upon more precisely and discussed further? What good reasons there are for the opposite, that it is correct to say that NKT is the continuation of the Ancient Kadampa Tradition?

As far as I can overlook it, no one, no knower of Tibetan Buddhism (also Nyingma pracitioners I know), is accepting NKT is the continuation of the Ancient Kadampa Tradition - only NKT itself. So I would like to keep the last paragraph as it is until there are good proofs for it to change it.

What is your opinion? Kt66 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

KT, thanks for the elaboration. I think that since a lot of this ground is covered at the NKT wikipedia entry, we should just refer people there. What do you think about this;

"In the 1990s, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Dge-shes Bskal-bzang Rgya-mtsho), a monk trained at Sera Monastery, a Gelug university, founded a new western organisation which he named the "New Kadampa Tradition." The NKT claims to follow the Kadampa tradition, but most Tibetan Buddhists dispute this contention; please see New Kadampa Tradition for further discussion." --GZ 10/12/05

Sorry for the huge elaborations. Ok, I think this is quite fair. I agree. Thank you. Kt66 16:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfair words

Unfair words against Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, so I added a link to his point of view. Rgds, Eirikur(eirikur@itn.is).

I suggest a complete revision of this article

I suggest a complete revision of the text to the Old Kadampa Tradition. What here is described is to easy and does not touch the deep tradition of Atisha. My problem is, I do not speak English very well, but you can find under Wikipedia German Kadampa a very detailed and precise description of this ancient tradition.

My corrections are: not Atisha has founded that tradition; his main lay disciple Dromtönpa has founded it. Atisha himself was a complete open and non sectarian master (like Je Tsongkhapa too) and he was even much respected in the Theravada school. He promoted mainly Sutra teachings and Tantra teachings only very secret. Dromtönpa himself gave three different lineages to the "three brothers". So there were three different Kadampa lineages after Dromtönpa. The origin of the Sakya, Kagyu and Gelugpa are connected with this lineage and the most of the Kadampa teachings are took into all Tibetan Buddhist schools, also Nyingmapa. All three Kadampa lineages of Dromtönpa were collected and absorbed complete into Gelug Tradition by Je Tsongkhpa. And Gampopa the main disciples of Milarepa and great Kagyu master was also a disciple of the Kadampa-Tradition of Atisha and integrated these teachings into the teachings given by Milarepa to him. So he combined Mahamudra, the six Yogas of Naropa and the Kadampa Teachings (especially on Bodhichitta) and passed it to his disciples.

Today there is no Kadampa Tradition as taught by Atisha anymore!

(The New Kadampa Tradition is based on Gelug teachings and can not referred to as being Kadampa Tradition as taught by Atisha or Dromtönpa. Atisha also taught Kalachakra and other Tantras which are part of Gelugpa but not New Kadampa Tradition. And he also emphasised the Vinaya very much, also no part of the NKT but of Gelugpa. And the root master of Geshe Kelsang was not a Kadampa master he was a Gelugpa! I think there happened a big misunderstanding over the years with the advertisement of the NKT:

To be inspired to practice like the eagles of the Old Kadampas does not convert a Gelugpa back into an Old Kadampa! 

New Kadampa Tradition is based on the teachings of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche and the latter has made himself something new, like to emphasize the Vajrayogini Tantra (from Sakyapa) and give up the main protectors of the Gelug tradition (Mahakala, Kalarupa, Vairavana) and promote Shugden. Because Geshe Kelsang only offers a small (but of course essential) range of the teachings and made also new styles like the 10-vows-ordination for nuns & monks, my opinion is that it is better to refer NKT as his own tradition, based on Gelugpa teachings and inspired by the example of the old Kadampas and with different new aspects made by him. And not mix it with Old Kadampas or New Kadampas - because "New Kadampas" were given to the Gelug Tradition it is just a second name for Gelug Tradition. So there would be much less confusion than claiming or give the impression that Old Kadampas has survived as NKT or NKT is Old Kadampas...)

Perhaps there is somebody who can translate the German article of Wikipedia or can make the points more clear? The German article on Kadampa Tradition (Atisha’s) is quite objective an unbiased. -- Kt66 15:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

New Changes reverted

@ 09:10, 8 September 2005 134.2.147.103 (Lojong and Bodhicitta are not the same, Lojong is not from the Kadam school, etc. etc.)

Lojong is the way how to develop a special strong Bodhichitta. It was passed by Serlingpa (the master from Sumatra) to Atisha who stayed with Serlingpa for 12 years. These teachings on how to develop Bodhichitta is one of the special features of the Kadampa school and was overtook in all Tibetan Buddhist schools. If you want to improve an article please change the sections which you see as wrong or discuss it before here at the board. --Kt66 17:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with my changes, it is no more responsible to simply revert them. Let us start first of all with the question of English. There is no excuse to write Lodschong in English. Also, the sentance starting 'Him was prophesised' made so little sense that there is really no point in keeping it. Also, I do not think it excusable to misspell things like Bodhicitta (not Bodhichitta!). Vielleicht handelt es sich um eine Übersetzung. In diesen Fall soll ich vielleicht den vorliegende Deutsche Ausgabe hingucken.

About facutal matters, whaterever the relationship between Bodhicitta (in Tib. Byang-chub-sems) and Lojong (Blo-sbyong) they are not the same and it is wrong to simply equate them. My own understanding was that the seven point mind training tradition was founded by the Shangs-pa Bka'-brgyud teacher Kun-po Rnal-'byor.

vis-a-vis Tsong-ka-pa, he was himself trained a Sa-skya and there is no indication that within his own life he saw himself as forming a new school.

vis-a-vis the New Kadampa this school is not specifically western, and does see itself as schismatic.

hi! The spelling of the English-words I agree of course - thank you for your help; but not the facts on Tsongkhapa. First: Tsongkhapa had many Lamas from all traditions you can not refer him to this or that tradition. His main master in Madhyamika was Rendawa, a great Sakya Lama, but he also received Mahamudra Teachings in the Kagyu Lineage and got first lay ordination from the Karmapa. The most founders of the tibetan schools were non-sectarian, they belonged to no specific school. Even Tsongkhapa were scolded to practice eclecticism. He was quite sceptical on all Tibetan commentaries and checked all what he received with the Indian scriptures of the great Indian Panditas and by meditating on them. He also received the Kalachakra teachings and the Chöd Lineage of Machig Labtrön (Shije Lineage)- he had also visions of her...Perhaps he was one of the fist Rime-Masters!

NKT is a western tradition they see themselves as western organisation and NKT has no roots in the Tibetan Buddhist community even Geshe Kelsang stopped all contacts to the Tibetan Buddhist community. Only westerners teach in their organisation...--Kt66 10:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The teachings on Bodhicitta of the lineage of Serlingpa (also known as Dharmakirti) ---> Atisha is one of the most famous features of the Kadampa Tradition. First Atisha gave this mind training on Bodhicitta (later known as Lojong-mind-training) only to Dromtönpa. Dromtönpa gave it to only four disciples and they were kept secret; later when Geshe Chekhawa made these teachings on how to train in Bodhicitta (of the Kadampa lineage) public, it became known as Lojong or Seven-Point-Mind-Training. The root text was written by Geshe Chekhawa and is the scriptural edition of the oral transmission of the Kadampa Masters. Geshe Chekhawa was a Kadampa Geshe/ Kadampa Master. Before Geshe Chekhawa these teachings were taught very secret and only the text of Geshe Langri Tangpa (also a Kadmapa Master) "Eight steps on Training the Mind" were available. So one can refer to that teachings on Bodhicitta of the Kadampa Tradition as Lojong Teachings. However I also agree to some compromise because we discussed it here. However there is also to mark that there exist different texts on Lojong mind training. None of the Lojong texts I own is not starting by Serlingpa and Atisha and refer to the root verses on Seven-Point-Mind-Training Geshe Chekhawa Yeshe Dorje, also Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoches Commentary on it. --Kt66 11:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that your information comes from rumours you have heard and not from contemporary historical sources, it is clear that in any case it is partisan. I must admit that 15th century Tibet is not my arrea. The impression within the Bka'-brgyud sect is certainly not that Blo-sbyong (Lojong) comes from the Kadampa tradition. While I admit that sectarianism was not to divisive in the 15th century as it was to become latter, I object to two things. Rimed is an anti-Geluk 19th century movement, so Tshong-ka-pa does not qualify as a member. (not anti-Geluk you say, well, read something by Byams-dgongs-mkhon-sprul (Jamgön Kontrul) and then we will talk) Secondly, Tshong-ka-pa was no doubt a Sa-skya, I think if you consider where he grew up, with whom he studied, and in particular which Tantric practices he introduced into his movement his origins as a Sa-skya will be clear. Truth be told, you are the first I have ever heard object to this, I thought it was taken for granted as a historcal fact. But as I said 15th century is not my forte.

Apropos of New Kadmapa, I don't know any insiders, but I thought the whole point was that this movement split with the Gelukpa's over the Rdo-rje Gzhugs-ldan (Dorje Shugden) issue. There are certainly adherents of the Shugden movement who are not Westerners. (p.s. Shugden is a Sa-skya lake diety, see the paper of (Geshe) George Dryfus).

Detailed Informations on the Kadampa Lineage

After the death of Atisha (1054) his main disciple Lama Dromtonpa (Drom-tön Gyal-we Jungne, 1005 - 1054) organized his transmissions into the legacy known as "The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas" - a tradition whereby an individual practitioner could perceive all doctrines of the sutras and tantras as non-contradictory and could personally apply them all as complementary methods for the accomplishment of enlightenment. Eventually this lineage came to be known as Atisha's Kadam Tradition, the Marvellous Legacy of Seven Divine Dharmas. Lama Dromtonpa transmitted the various lineages of Atisha by dividing them between The Three Noble Brothers. To one he gave the scriptural traditions, to the second the oral transmissions, and to the third the pith instructions. The Three Noble Brothers are: Geshe Potowa, Geshe Phuchungwa and Geshe Chenngawa. Geshe Potowa (1031-1106) received the entire scriptual teachings and hidden verbal transmission of both sutra and tantra from Dromtonpa. The scriptural traditions were of two main types: those dealing with ultimate reality and the wisdom of emptiness; and those dealing with conventional reality and the vast Bodhimind (Skt. Bodhicitta) activities. As for the former of these, or those dealing with the ultimate wisdom of emptiness, the principal texts stressed here were Nagarjuna's six treatises on emptiness philosophy, such as The Root of Wisdom (Skt., Mulamadhyamikakarika) and so forth, together with the commentaries to them by the later Indian masters; and also Atisha's own commentaries on the middle view and on the nature of the two truths. Six quintessential texts were used to elucidate the nature of the bodhisattva's vast activities: The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt., Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga; An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt., Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga; A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt., Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva; A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way (Skt., Bodhisattvacharyaavatara) by Shantideva; A Garland of Birth Stories (Skt., Jatakamala) by Aryashura, and The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt., Udanavarga) - the Tibetan Dhammapada by Dharmatrata. It is the tradition to read at the Great Prayer Festival (Mönlam) the fifth of these, A Garland of Birth Stories, during the morning session. These were the principal scriptures studied in the Old Kadam School. As for the oral transmission teachings, these emanated from and were the essential practices taught in the five scriptures mentioned above. These oral tradition teachings are generally known as "the instructions for training the mind in the Mahayana tradition" (Tib., Theg-chen-blo-sbyong-gi-gdampa-pa). Atisha had collected these Lojong Teachings from his three principal Indian gurus (from his Master Dharmakirti (Serlingpa), Guru Dharmarakshita and Yogi Maitreya) and later he secretly transmitted them to his main disciple, Lama Dromtonpa. During the time of the The Three Noble Kadampa Brothers many of these oral teachings were collected together and compiled into the text Stages of the Doctrine (Lamrim; tib.: sTan-rim). Yet at the time the lineages from Atisha’s Indonesian master Serlingpa (the Lojong - Teachings on how to train in Bodhichitta) were still kept secret! When the times were sufficiently mature the Lojong Teachings were publicly revealed. First Geshe Kham Lungpa published Eight Sessions for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-thun-brgyad-ma). Then Geshe Langri Tangpa (1054-1123) wrote Eight Verses for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-tshig-brgyad-ma). After this Sangye Gompa composed A Public Explanation (Tib., Tshogs-bshad-ma) and Geshe Chekhawa (1102-1176)wrote Seven Points for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-don-bdun-ma). By this way the Lojong Oral Transmission Teachings gradually emerged and became known to the public. However they exist before secret by the lineage of Serlingpa-> Atisha-> Dromtöpa -> Potowa -> Sharawa (1070-1141) -> Chekhawa (1101-1175). From Khamlungpa, Langri Tangpa and basically Chekhawa onwards they became public and later they were integrated into all four Tibetan Buddhist Schools. (These Kadampa-Lojong texts were brought together into the anthology A Hundred Texts on Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-byong-brgya-rtsa).) As for the third lineage the pith instructions transmitted by Lama Dromtonpa has its root in the secret oral teachings of Atisha and his disciples as embodied in The Great Book of the Kadampa Masters: A Jewel Rosary of Profound Instructions on the Bodhisattva Way. The Kadam Tradition has mainly emphasised the Sutra Path (The Union of Compassion and Wisdom). The Kadampa Lineage is also summarized by "The Teachings Of The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas That Adorn The Body", "The Three Containers That Adorn The Speech" and "The Three Disciplines That Adorn The Consciousness".

Ok if you have more detailed informations or you can improve or refuse my information’s your most welcome but please do it by knowing and after checking it out ;-) I activated a little bit when I said: Je Tsongkhpa was perhaps the first Rime Master!; because to many people are to attached and fixed to traditions and belief on them of something very solid and fixed. A tradition is always a mix of different transmission lineages and the understanding and practice of the Dharma of the main masters of that lineage. In Tibet there is the saying: "One Lama one lineage." If you want to read more detail informations on Tsongkhapas non-sectarian style you can read his biographies like "Source of all Goddness". The Tibetan title I can give you next time I lent the book to someone.

PS: Your statemant: "The impression within the Bka'-brgyud sect is certainly not that Blo-sbyong (Lojong) comes from the Kadampa tradition." look at "The Great Path of Awakening : The Classic Guide to Using the Mahayana Buddhist Slogans to Tame the Mind and Awaken the Heart" by Jamgon Kongtrul (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1570625875/ref=sib_rdr_bc/103-4065359-0629438?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00H&j=0#reader-page) he says totally the same: The root text was written down by Chekhawa Yeshe Dorje, a Kadampa Master. So different Gelug texts say this, Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Jamgon Kongtrul say it. I got the same information’s from different high Lamas from all Tibetan Buddhist lineages, from Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu school and so on. Look also at http://community.palouse.net/lotus/ljp2.htm or make your own investigation and put it on the board. --Kt66 16:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Meaning of Kadampa - temporarily pulled from article.

"Ka" means all of Buddha's teachings in general, "dam" means the special presentation of Buddha's teachings devised by Venerable Atisha which is called Lamrim or Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, and "pa" means a person who practices this teachings. Therefore, a Kadampa is anyone whose main practice is lamrim, and who integrates all their spiritual teachings and trainings into lamrim.

My objection to this is that it is patently based upon a didactic method, but it misses the central thrust, which is that the name "Kadampa" is a name. The name is representative of a school of practice that survived as a distinct movement in Tibet for about two hundred years. Therefore a Kadampa is NOT anyone whose main practice is lamrim! A Kadampa is anyone who belonged to the Kadam / Kadampa school. KP - don't blur things once more. Keep traditions distinct, and understand the difference between a name and it's etymology. My friend Drolma isn't Tara or a liberator, just because she is called Drolma! (20040302 07:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear March 2nd, I recently included a section on the meaning of Kadampa, which is accurate, but which was removed for unclear reasons. I would be grateful if you would state your reasons before removing anything.

The article does not contain a definition of Kadampa and it would be helpful to include one. I think there is a problem here insomuch as you are unable to distinguish clearly between Gelugpa, Gelugpa tradition and Kadampa. A Kadampa is anyone who practises lamrim Are you saying that anyone who is a Kadampa has to be a part of the Gelugpa tradition? This is absurd. You are at pains to show that New Kadampas are not Gelugpas - that's fine, we are not part of the Gelugpa tradition, quite deliberately so, but you cannot say that we are not Kadampas. KT66 has this misunderstanding too. To practise lamrim, you don't have to be part of the Gelugpa tradition, but anyone whose main practice is lamrim is a Kadampa. That is also the reason why I deleted what seems to me to be a very sectarian inclusion, "not to be confused with". This article, as it stands, is discriminatory and inaccurate therefore I would like to reintroduce the change that you have deleted. With love, :--Kelsangpagpa 07:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This tradition is based on a variety of Gelug teachings and it represent not the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha. This is my specific point of contention. What determines whether something represents the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha? Would you claim that only the Gelugpa tradition represents this tradition, or would you say that nothing does?

My criterion for whether something represents the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha is whether the teachings are a continuation of this tradition, in other words, if they are pure lamrim teachings. If New Kadampa Tradition teachings are the same as those given by Venerable Atisha (if they are pure lamrim) then Kadampa Buddhism as practised by NKT does represent the Ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha. Our main text, which is Joyful Path of Good Fortune is a pure lamrim text, so the discriminatory statement should be removed. With love, --Kelsangpagpa 08:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again KP (use a colon at the beginning of your paragraph to indent - it helps to distinguish authorship - two colons etc. indents more and more)

There seems to be a conflict of view between yourself and KWinters regarding the status of the NKT and Kadampa. She/He says "You wrongly see (NKT) as an offshoot of a Tibetan school when we are clear that we are an independent western Buddhist movement which is based upon the teachings of the Kadampa lineage."

Before going into the rest of your discussion, I ask for clarity; are you saying that the (Kadam) were not a Tibetan school founded by Dromtönpa? It seems that you want to say that anyone who practices lam rim is a Kadampa. Do you not see the different usage of this term? The former case is a well-known term to reflect a specific Tibetan school that lasted so many years. The latter is a different use of the term - talking about the quality of a person's practice.

I amended the 'not to be confused with' text to make it reflect the views of the NKT in a manner which I hope is less objectionable to you. (20040302 09:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear March 2nd, thank you, that is a bit better - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 12:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

On whether New Kadampa Tradition are Kadampas

Dear Everyone,

I would like to remove the last section of this article, which seems to me to be discriminatory and inaccurate, and to reinstate the definition of Kadampa that was removed from the article. I would now like to prove to you that NKT practitioners are Kadampas, in accordance with the definition which was pulled from the article by the Wikipedia user March 2nd.

Firstly, there is no contradiction between myself and K Winters. March 2nd says:

There seems to be a conflict of view between yourself and KWinters regarding the status of the NKT and Kadampa. She/He says "You wrongly see (NKT) as an offshoot of a Tibetan school when we are clear that we are an independent western Buddhist movement which is based upon the teachings of the Kadampa lineage."

Firstly, what is independent? Buddha taught that everything is dependent. Kristi says: You wrongly see (NKT) as an offshoot of a Tibetan school when we are clear that we are an independent western Buddhist movement which is based upon the teachings of the Kadampa lineage What she says is completely correct. We are different from and independent of the Tibetan 'Gelugpa' tradition, insomuch as we do not follow the authority of the Dalai Lama and the Ganden Tripa, but we are dependent on the teachings of the Kadampa Lineage. We follow the authority of Atisha, Je Tsongkhapa, Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. We are a different 'brand' of Kadampa, but Kadampas nonetheless because we are a suitable basis for imputing 'Kadampa' - namely, we practise the teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa (the lineage holders of the Old and New Kadampa respectively) and our main practice is lamrim (and also lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra).

Where does the term 'Kadampa' come from? It is the name of a Buddhist tradition that began in Tibet with 'Lamp for the Path' by Atisha, composed as a result of a request from Tibetan King Yeshe O, but what distinguishes Kadampa from Kagyu, or Nyingma, for example? Kadampas have lamrim as their main practice. The Kadampa tradition is so called because it is made up of Kadampa practitioners, and the distinguishing characteristic of such practitioners is that Lamrim, the special presentation of Buddha's teachings originated by Atisha and elucidated by Je Tsongkhapa, is their main practice. By this definition, NKT practitioners are Kadampas. Our lineage is pure Kadampa, and our practice is pure Kadampa.

Kt66 seems to think that the Kadampa lineage disappeared or was absorbed into the Gelugpa tradition, but this is completely incorrect. I can list our Lineage Gurus, from Buddha Shakyamuni to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, for both our vast path teachings and our profound path teachings, and show that there is an unbroken lineage of Kadampa practitioners to the present day. Kt66 has accused us of lying (or at best misrepresenting ourselves) when we say that we are Kadampas, but why should we lie? I can prove that we are Kadampas and that the lineage is intact.

This is what he says (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_2):

K Winters: --Again, this is your biased opinion and is contrary to the facts. Since we study Lamrim and the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa you are wrong to say we are not in the Kadampa lineage. It should not be included in the main body of the article.

Kt66 - Sorry, I think you have a biased opinion and list wrong facts! NKT lies on that point. I repeat: NKT lies on that point! And you're completely ignorant about the facts! NKT is NO Kadampa NO Gelugpa. If you would know Gelugpa and Kadampa lineage and their texts really you would agree but your totally absorbed in NKT ideas and do not know anything outsite NKT, isn't it? Since Nyingma and Kagyuepa practice Lamrim are they Kadampas? Even Drikung Kagyu posesses main teachings of Kadampas and they do not claim to be Kadampa Tradition because it just does not exist outsite the four main Buddhist school. (I assume he means that four main Tibetan Buddhist schools of Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug)

The reason why Kagyupas and Nyingmas are not Kadampas is that their main practice is not lamrim. Kagyupas follow the instructions and lineage of Marpa and Milarepa as their main practice, a different presentation of Dharma emphasising Mahamudra, and Nyingmas follow Padmasambhava and Rabjam Longchenpa. We exclusively follow the teachings of Atisha, the Kadampa Geshes such as Geshe Potowa, Geshe Chekhawa and Geshe Langri Tangpa (we study their lojong root texts) and Je Tsongkhapa. This is OUR lineage – the Kadampa lineage. Therefore, we are Kadampas and it is quite incorrect for you to say otherwise. We are not lying. We meet the criteria for being Kadampas and we are Kadampas – Modern Day Kadampas.

I am not saying that 'Gelugpa tradition' practitioners are not Kadampas, so why are you saying that we aren't Kadampas? You have incorrectly judged us without the correct information. Tibetan Buddhists is so keen to denounce NKT in order to justify their position on Dorje Shugden that they haven't properly investigated the lineage and motivation of NKT and so make false claims such as we are not Kadampas. If you think that we are not Kadampas because we are not part of your Gelugpa organisation, you are wrong.. It's like claiming that Gelugpas are the 'one true Kadampas', in the way that some Christian traditions may claim to have exclusivity. For example, can you find Christians outside of an organised church? Of course! A Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ. A Kadampa is someone who practices the teachings of the Kadampas and who follows that lineage. In the same way that you don't have to be part of a church to be a Christian, you can be a Kadampa without being part of the 'Gelugpa tradition' as an organisation, or even the NKT. Furthermore, we can use the same arguments that we have used with Kadampa to prove that we are Gelugpas. If a Gelugpa is a follower of Je Tsongkhapa, and a practitioner of his teachings, we are also Gelugpas. There is absolutely no definition of Gelugpa in which one is a Gelugpa only if one follows the authority of the Dalai Lama and the Ganden Tripa! I would personally like to know what the Dalai Lama's role is in the Gelugpa tradition to dictate its belief and direction, given that he is not a Lineage Guru but that's another issue. The point is, a Gelugpa is simply a follower of Je Tsongkhapa as a Christian is simply a follower of Jesus.

(As an aside, I recently discovered that Trijang Rinpoche was the Ganden Tripa at one point, and he enthusiastically encouraged the practice of Dorje Shugden. However, the Dalai Lama is not following his direction, even though Trijang Rinpoche was one of his Gurus. It seems that even the Dalai Lama doesn't follow the authority of someone who was both the Ganden Tripa and his Guru – a most strange example of Guru devotion! It's also interesting that even Ganden Tripas do not agree on the status and nature of Dorje Shugden.)

You did not recognize that the senior tutor of HH the Dalai Lama Ling Rinpoche spoke against Shugden. And you don't understand if HH had different Gurus only he himself decides and knows who his Root Gurus are. Not you. Also because you seem not to know the scriptures of Tsongkhapa on Guru Devotion and the Kalachakra teachings you don't know how to act if the teacher advices you not in accordance with the Dharma or how you go properly to distance to a Guru if you see, you can not deal with him anymore. Further because you negelct that the 13th Dalai Lama (and different other Gelugpas and of course most of the masters of other Tibetan Buddhist Schools) spoke against Shugden you can not even a slightly bit understand what His Holiness was given for a burden by Trijang Rinpoche by giving His Holiness a practice which his incarnation before refuted and even scolded Pabhongka Rinpoche for. You seem to be quite clever, but from high flying a deep fall will come. Because I was for years within NKT I know your thoughts very well but they are arrogant and stupid as my were when I argued as arrogant as you just do. yours Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In 'Modern Day Kadampas – the History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition' Modern Day Kadampas, Jim Belither says:

All of Geshe Kelsang's books are commentaries to Je Tsongkhapa's teachings. Indeed, Geshe-la has remarked that he regards all these books as coming from Je Tsongkhapa, with himself as being like a cassette recorder into which the Wisdom Buddha, the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugdän, has placed the cassette of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings.

This is just an assertion and says not that much. Also there is no commentary on Vajrayogini made by Tsongkhapa. The commentary of Geshe Keslang on Vajrayogini is not based on a work of Tsongkhapa. So how can Jim Belither says "all"? Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So this is how I see it: You are the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition, NKT are the Western Gelugpa tradition. A Gelugpa is a follower of Je Tsongkhapa. Your lineage is the same as ours, but splits at Trijang Rinpoche.

I can not agree. NKT has also not the main teachings of Gelugpa/Tsongkhapa and do not teach it or transmit it. To remember you one of the main emphasised teachings of Tsongkhapa is the Vinaya and the Vinaya was changed by NKT and the Major works of Tsongkhapa are: the Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path (Lam-rim chen-mo), the Great Exposition of Tantras (sNgag-rim chenmo), the Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretive and Definitive Teachings (Drnng-nges legs-bshad snying-po), the Praise of Relativity (rTen-'brel bstodpa), the Clear Exposition of the Five Stages of Guhyasamaja (gSang-'dus rim-lnga gsal-sgron) and the Golden Rosary (gSer-phreng). From these Major Works of Je Tsongkhapa only a Lamrim text is provided by NKT and this Lamrim text - a commentary of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is not compareable with Tsongkhapas Lam-rim chen-mo. NKT excludes many teachings of the Gelugpas, like the Chöd, Kalachakra Teachings and the special feature of Tsongkhapa the Union of Ghuyasamaja, Chakrasambhava and Yamantaka Tantra, so NKT can also not claim to be a complete lineage....) Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Therefore it is incorrect to say that:

1.Kadampas no longer exist in this world and their lineage can only be found in Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Kadampa teachings are alive and well and living in the West in the New Kadampa Tradition as well as in the Gelugpa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.

2.New Kadampa Tradition is incorrectly named. As I have shown, it is clearly a tradition of Kadampas, followers of Atisha.

3.That 'Kadampa' is only a tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, and not a description of a practitioner for whom lamrim is their main practice. Therefore the definition of Kadampa should be reinstated in the article.

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not making an exclusive claim for NKT to be the only Kadampas of this world, just as when I say we are a pure tradition I are not saying that all other traditions are impure, but you must now recognise the legitimacy of my claim for NKT to be Kadampas. Therefore the last section (not to be confused with....) should be removed. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 12:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh fine Keslang Pagpa that you opened this discussion on this issue, this evening I will read your statement and think about it. Just short: I want to excuse myself for accuseing NKT to lie on this point. I was confused and didn't recognize the basis of the imputation "ly" properly. Lying means either not saying the truth, when you are asked for and know the truth or if you say consciously the untruth. Now I recognized I myself as Ex-NKT (teacher) was confused and NKT is still confused about what "Kadampa Tradition" really is - confused about the basis of imputation "Kadampa". I think, if NKT member would really know what Kadampa or Gelug tradition is, if they would have a proper understanding of it, they would'nt label NKT as Kadampa or Gelugpa. So to clarify this point we have first establish the correct understanding of "Tradition" and "Kadampa" and then we can check further. So we have to find out the characteristics of "Kadampa" and "Tradition" to discuss this issue properly. This will help us all. So long, Kt66 14:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

New Kadampa Tradition and violation of buddhist refuge

There is one very serious circumstance which make kadampa-practicioners permanently braking their buddhist refuge. Buddha Shakyamuni told, that from the time on one takes buddhist refuge, one should no longer worship worldly gods. What the NKT-devotees permanently do is worshipping a worldly demon called Shugden, even more worse then worshipping a worldly god. This implies a permanent violation of buddhist refuge. A Very very serious problem of NKT.--12 Tenma 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Old Kadampa does not exist anymore - Deny Shugden practice

The Old Kadampa School does not exist as an independent tradition anymore. They dissolved into different tibetan schools, mainly into Geluk in the 15th century. Nearly all Old-Kadampa-monasteries were overtaken by Geluk, some by the Sakya. To state, that new kadampa is old kadampa is good propaganda but not relying on facts. Typicall half-truths/half-lies of the New Kadampa-information-policy. Go to the facts and do research on Kadampa and the sources of New Kadampa. The difference is so easy to find. Try to deny Shugden -practice, very easy - and maybe you come a little closer to practice like it was done within old Kadampa. Shugden was never worshipped by Atisha and Tsongkhapa. When these Lamas are really so important and the heart of practice of New Kadampa, give Shugden-practice a kick, worship Mahakala as the main protector within all schools of tibetan buddhism instead and return to what buddhism really is about. --12 Tenma 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why the New Kadampa Tradition don't keep the legacy of the ancient Kadampa's

- and can't thereby correctly be identified as being the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha.

1. Geshe Keslang himself stated in a letter published by NKT July 2000: "From the very beginning NKT is the pure tradition of Lama Tsongkhapa. All my Dharmabooks are commentaries on the teaching of Lama Tsongkhapas teachings. We are pure Gelugpas but in public we don't use the term Gelugpa. Why not? Because in the Gelugpa Community there are a lot political problems and many quarrels between Galugpas and other traditions. NKT don't want to experience that problems, thats why we don't use this term in public but the name „New Kadampa-Buddhism". In reality New Kadampa Buddhism and Gelugpa is the same...." (Written by Geshe Keslang Gytaso. Translated from German into English by myself.)

2. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, NKT-monk and a resident Teacher in the New Kadampa Tradition who knows their internal rules stated in "Which tradition we are?" at the 8th July 2004:

"We are not Tibetan Buddhists, so we are not Gelugpas. We are not one of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. The Gelugpa tradition does not follow the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden, whereas Kadampa Buddhists do. Kadampa Buddhism is global Buddhism, straight from the heart of Guru Tsongkhapa in this modern age. Although the teachings are similar to those in the Gelugpa tradition, the presentation is quite different and more suited to busy Western practitioners. Also our lineage is quite different to the Gelugpas. I feel it is important to recognise that Kadampa Buddhist and the Gelugpa tradition are quite different, otherwise there could be mixing of traditions and problems in the future. Lots of love, Pagpa"

3. The basis of imputation of ancient Kadampa Tradition (Lineage) is their teachings (presentation), practice and the unbroken lineage. The teachings of the Kadampas and emphasized texts you'll find in the article Kadampa. From all of these texts only one text is practiced and is taught in NKT: Shantideva's Bodhichayravatara. None of the other texts. Not even Atisha's Lamrim text 'Lamp for the Path'! So NKT can not be Kadampa Tradition. Just to have some money makes you not a millionaire, because you lack a lot of money to complete the necessary amount which can be named as "million" likewise just to have some Gelug (or Kadampa) teachings makes you not to Gelugpa or Kadampa because you lack a lot of teachings to complete the necessary amount which is the basis to be named as "Gelugpa" or "Kadampa".

4. Neither did Atisha emphazised "Guru Yoga" as NKT does nor did he taught, practice or even mention Shugden, the main "protector" practice of NKT. He emphasised Refuge and Bodhichitta. Also he didn't emphazised Vajrayogini as NKT does (a practice which is only since 7 generations in the Gelug lineage and was integrated from the Sakyapas) and his Kalachakra teachings are also not peresent in NKT.

5. For more on the discussion on the early Kadampa Tradition I suggest to study the "The blue Annals". I didn't and also Geshe Kelsang didn't offer this until now, but perhaps Gen Pagpa you can ask him to teach or translate the text, this would be perhaps very beneficial.

6. By focusing mere on the books of Geshe Kelsang even he would possess the complete Kadampa lineage you would destroy this lineage, because NKT excluded the Birth Stories (Jataka Tales) by Aryasura, The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga; An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt. Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga; A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt. Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva; The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt. Udanavarga) - the Tibetan Dhammapada by Dharmatrata; The Great Book of the Kadampa Masters: A Jewel Rosary of Profound Instructions on the Bodhisattva Way and so on, because NKT teachers don't teach and study these texts or give the oral transmissions of it (tib. Lungh). If you would possess the Kadampa lineage then you're just destroying it.

7. Atisha and Tsongkhapa emphasised most the Vinaya and were famous and respected for this very much. NKT does neglect their Vinaya teachings and established a new Vinaya by this you also destroy their Vinaya lineage.

8. The spiritual head of the New Kadampa Tradition himself, Geshe Keslang Gyatso, stated: "New Kadampa Buddhism and Gelugpa is the same."

How then one can name NKT as Kadampa Tradition?

Can NKT practitioners be named as Kadampas?

Yes I agree perhaps they can. Geshe Sonam Richen (a Gelug authority) states: "A Kadampa Practitioner is one who practices the paths of the three levels of capacity taught by Atisha, which comprise everything included in the three categories of teaching."

So then also the Karma Kagyuepas (Gampopa included Lamrim in the Karma Kagyue tradition) and all practitoners of all tibetan buddhist schools who practice Lamrim can be named as Kadampas. But this means not they possess the (complete) early Kadampa Lineage or are the continuation of that ancient tradition and can thereby claim(as NKT in their advertisement does) they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha.

So my conclusions from this are:

First I excuse myself for accuseing NKT to ly about that point. I'm sorry for it! (As I mentioned before: NKT does not ly if they state they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition, I think they are only confused about it, that's whay it is appropriate to excuse myself. On the other hand NKT is bluring themselves and thereby the people: Geshe Keslang says NKT is Gelug, Gen Pagpa wrote NKT is not Gelug but comes straight from the heart of Tsongkhapa; and the internet sites of NKT says they are Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha - very confusing, isn't it?)

Secondly NKT practitioners can (from my understandings) say they are Kadampas if they follow the three levels. But to be a Kadampa is not the same as possessing and keeping the Kadampa Tradition Lineage (Legacy).

Thirdly NKT can not claim to be the Kadampa Tradition or keep the lineage of the ancient Kadampa Tradition. Either NKT practitioners are confused if they do that or they do ly if after they have checked this out they still claim to be the same as the ancient Kadampa Tradition.

Is Kadampa Tradition the same as Gelugpa Tradition? This is not possible. The Gelug Tradition is based on different lineages, like Kagyu, Sakya, Kadampa and Shije lineage so Gelugpa is not Kadampa.

Kt66 08:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Links on further informations of Ancient Kadampa Lineage and Gelug School

• THE GELUG TRADITION
• SHORT OUTLINE OF THE GELUG TEACHINGS
• Excerpts from an interview with Jangtse Chöje Rizong Rinpoche

A Short Citation: "In the 15th century, Je Tsongkhapa and the upcoming Gelugpa tradition absorbed the Kadampa School." Kt66 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so Gelugpas are Kadampas. Since we are Gelugpas (followers of Je Tsongkhapa) we are also Kadampas. You have no valid reasons for saying that we are not lineage holders of the Ancient Kadampa Lineage, as you put it, because all our instructions come from Trijang Rinpoche, as do yours. If you say that we do not hold this lineage, then neither do you.

This is an interesting extract from an interview with Geshe Kelsang that appeared in Tricycle Magazine in 1998:

LOPEZ: Let me ask you the name of your organization, “New Kadampa Tradition”. We know that Tsongkhapa first called his group Dadam Sarpa (New Kadam). So you have taken that name. I am wondering: what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Gelugpa tradition?

GKG: 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 on 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. (my bolding)

LOPEZ: Are the New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa tradition synonymous?

GKG: Because the New Kadampa tradition is in Western countries, most of the followers of this tradition are Westerners, so their way of studying and practicing is different.

LOPEZ: So it is a Western organization. Gelugpa monks in Tibet and India are not members of the New Kadampa Tradition?

GKG: They never use the title New Kadampa Tradition at Sera, Ganden, and Drepung. Generally, the Kadampas before Lama Tsongkhapa are known as Old Kadampas, and after Lama Tsongkhapa, in books the lineages are called New Kadampa. This is because Lama Tsongkhapa had a slightly different way or presenting the dharma. But the only title used nowadays is Gelugpa. I called our dharma centers the New Kadampa Tradition. The source of the teachings and practices comes from Lama Tsongkhapa. We have never said that here we are pure, whereas others are not pure. The dharma is the same. (my bolding)

The Dharma is the same.....I rest my case. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 12:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I relax. Some people don't want to understand so they won't understand. People who look on the contributions open, unbiased and critical will understand. yours, Kt66 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a minute.. I quote KP from above: "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition, quite deliberately so", whereas KG says (tricycle) "We are pure Gelugpas.". And yet, if the NKT is indeed pure Gelugpa, it won't merely follow the texts, but also bow to the institution. I mention below that there are two (at least!) different interpretations of Kadampa - that of the practitioner, and that of the institution. No-one can claim that an institution has the characteristics of a practitioner! Therefore, I guess that by "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition" you are talking about the institution, whereas "We are pure Gelugpas" is a statement regarding individual practice- you follow the Gelugpa way. Therefore, you will have no difficulty understanding my argument that the NKT is NOT the Kadampa tradition, but that it does promotes the way of the Kadampas. Or have I made a mistake somewhere? (20040302 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

I agree. You discriminated correctly. Thank you very much. :-)) Kt66 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand I can not agree that NKT follow the Gelugpa way! But we can discuss this if this becomes necessary for the article on NKT. Kt66 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NKT / Kadampa - a proposed solution

I do not accept that the NKT belongs to the Kadampa tradition. This is why. First of all, we can accept the normal NKT/Sopa interpretation of a Kadampa to be an individual who practices the Kadampa teachings - this is okay - it is a common didactic approach in the Tibetan tradition. We find this approach being used to talk about theg.smad (hinayana) - according to most Tibetan teachers, theg.smad is most importantly a state of mind, whether or not you merely have the wish to escape nirvana; ie renunciation without bodhicitta (using the mahayana buddhist definitions of these terms)

Of course, there are other meanings of the term theg.smad, including identifying them with the early 'Nikaya' schools, or with the hearer and pratyeka sutras.

So we can give Kadampa two distinct interpretations:

1) Pertaining to the school founded by Dromtompa that was absorbed by the Geluk.

2) Pertaining to a practitioner who follows the Kadampa way

We cannot that the NKT is the Kadampa tradition on the first meaning, because the school was absorbed in the 14th - 15th centuries.

We cannot state that the NKT is a Kadampa tradition on the second meaning (because it is not a practitioner) even though some of the NKT members may be Kadampas (in that they practice according to the kadampa way).

Of course, we could state that the NKT promotes the Kadampa way, if there is evidence to support that. (20040302 09:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

I agree. In both cases. Practitioners can see themselves as Kadampas if they follow the Kadampa way of practicing but NKT is not the Kadampa Tradition. Even when they see themselves as Gelugpas and claim thereby to represent the Old Kadampas. The Ancient Kadampa Tradition is defined by it's characteristics and NKT is defined by it's characteristics. Gold has its specifics characteristics and these are different from brass. Although brass seems on a surface level as being gold if you check the characteristics of both metals, you'll see they are different. And if you use both metals they work different. Likewise the Ancient Kadampa Tradition and NKT have different characteristics. To understand this one has to check only what the characteristics of Ancient Kadampa Lineage are and what the characteristics of NKT are (Studied texts, oral lineage, focuses and Presentation). If you just look on one characteristic of the Ancient Kadampas: they focused for instance more on the Mahayana Sutras than Tantra. NKT is using just one Mahayana Sutra (!) and focus on (their understanding of) Tantric Guru Yoga.

I do not claim NKT is mere brass. This is just an example that things appear to be similar but if you check deeply they aren't. Kt66

Dear March 2nd, thanks for proposing this solution. I'm quite surprised at how both you and and Kt66 see 'Kadampa' and 'Gelugpa'. For me, anyone who follows the teachings of Atisha (old Kadampa) and Je Tsongkhapa (new Kadampa, but known as Gelugpa) is a Kadampa/Gelugpa. You seem to see Gelug as an institution. Surely, it is the Teachings, and those practitioners who follow those teachings, not an organisation? I don't understand your statement that Old Kadampa was 'absorbed' in the 14th and 15th centuries! The teachings have been preserved by an unbroken lineage of Teachers from the time of Atisha until the present day. One of the defining characteristics of the Old Kadampa is the union of the vast and profound path teachings, whereas for the New Kadampa (Gelug) it is the union of sutra and tantra. One of the main achievements of Tsongkhapa was to show clearly how sutra and tantra could be practised together without contradiction. I never realised before seeing your responses to my points in the various discussion pages how seemlessly Geshe Kelsang has integrated sutra and tantra in our tradition, just as Tsongkhapa did. So, Kt66, if you see us focusing on tantric Mahayana rather than sutra Mahayana interpretations alone, then it is entirely consistent with us being pure Gelugpas! After all, Buddha's tantric teachings are his ultimate intention. However, my main point is the teachings of Atisha have survived intact through a lineage of precious Teachers to the present day. Anyone who receives those pure teachings and practises them is following Atisha's pure tradition (what else would it be?) and is a Kadampa. The lineage is not 'absorbed'. The presentation has changed, the meaning has not.

On the point that March 2nd raises about me saying that we are not part of the Gelugpa Tradition, quite deliberately so, there is no contradiction because I mean we are not part of the Gelugpa Tradition as practised within Tibetan Buddhism. We are not Tibetan Buddhists and do not follow the authority of the present Ganden Tripa and the Dalai Lama (although we follow the authority of the original Ganden Tripa - Je Tsongkhapa, and Trijang Rinpoche who was also a Ganden Tripa.) Our Lineage splits from yours at Trijang Rinpoche. Our next Lineage Guru is Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, whereas yours is not. Geshe Kelsang has both received and transmitted the pure Gelugpa teachings given to him by his Spiritual Guide, so we are pure Gelugpas (followers of Je Tsongkhapa) If you want evidence to support NKT following the Kadampa way, I respectfully suggest that you read Joyful Path. Although you feel that LRCM is superior, you will see that there is no difference. As Geshe Kelsang says in the 1998 interview with Tricycle "the Dharma is the same".- with love, --Kelsangpagpa 18:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

KP, I am astounded at your apparent inability to recognise the concept of institution regarding Buddhist schools, even though he is a member of one. KP - there are clear guidelines within the NKT on just who is boss. Buddhism has always had a very strong sense of hierarchy - due to the importance of organisation within the Sangha and the rules in the Vinaya reflect this. Therefore, it is meaningless to abandon these ideas when it does not suit you. Moreover, you say that you are "not part of the Gelugpa Tradition as practised within Tibetan Buddhism" and that you are "not Tibetan Buddhists" - go read the artice Geluk, which indicates that 1) It is a school, and 2) A school of Tibetan Buddhism. Moreover, the idea that the NKT is not Tibetan Buddhist (if we accept that it is Buddhist at all) is crazy. The Gelukpa school has been actively present (with monasteries, temples and teachers) in Europe for centuries - see Kalmykia, so being Tibetan Buddhist does not mean anything to do with living in Tibet. If you really wish to help me on this, explain to me why the NKT is not Tibetan Buddhist, in a rational manner that I can understand.

Basically, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the NKT is not the Kadampa, and the NKT is not Gelukpa. It is a distinct organisation with distinct hierarchy, bureaucracy and financial control, as were the Kadampa, and as are the Gelukpa. Moreover, your lineage does not split at Trijang Rinpoche, who died well before the NKT came into being, and who was Gelukpa through and through - indeed he was Ganden Tripa at one time. The fact that you believe that the lineage of teachings is 'what really makes a school' (which has all sorts of unwanted consequences for you) demonstrates that you appear to be wrapped up in a POV which is not reflective of common understanding.

This isn't a discussion regarding the transmission of doctrine or belief, KP, but the distinction between organisations. Please go and learn about these distinctions before rattling on about the NKT being Kadampa any more. (20040302 08:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

I'm very sorry Gen-la. I can really not follow your ideas. But I understand from my own experience when I was within NKT I discussed just as you do. You seem to ignore my contributions and the articles on what the defining charcteristics of Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition are and based on this ignorance (and personal ideas) of what the teachings and practice of both are you go on to claim NKT is the same. This is no discussion. So what to do? At the end the interested reader has to check out the facts for himslef properly and draw his own conclusions. So from this the discussion board is very fine and thnak you for your and KWinters contributions. Kt66 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)