Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Cult Question

You asked for Cult references:

• Now Totonto: "But Williams notes that NKT has "things that you find with an awful lot of what we normally call cults -- a strong, central, charismatic leader and a group that sees itself as over and against the world."

*The Independent "I got through to the Buddhist centre run by a rich, fast-growing and secretive Buddhist sect called the NKT (New Kadampa Tradition)."

*The GuardianThe Gurdian “MEMBERS of a British-based Buddhist sect are behind an aggressive international smear campaign to undermine the [Dalai Lama"

• Ken Jones is a founder and the present secretary of the UK Network of Engaged Buddhists. A long-standing Zen and Ch'an practitioner, he has authored The Social Face of Buddhism and Beyond Optimism: A Buddhist Political Ecology: "Further along the continuum are more typical movements, merging at the extreme end into "cults". The latter are tightly controlled and manipulative organisations with highly controversial leaders who induce extreme dependency in their followers. It is not suggested that any of the movements discussed here are cults in this sense. However, the FWBO could be located at the more open end of this continuum and NKT at the more cultic end.". - (perhaps there is no use in this?!)
• Sera Letter (according to Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück religious scientist from the Munic University, this letter was signed by 15 Abbots and Teachers of Sera Je Drathsang). The letter from Sera Monastery states: "We sincerely hope that the cult leader and his fanatical supporters go through this and think twice before their vitriolic outpourings on the holy person of the Dalai Lama." (and more...)
• Kay gives the opinion of FPMT members (page 83): The emergence of the NKT is thus described as the growth of a 'personality cult', orchestrated by a 'totally unscrupulous rogue geshe' through the 'cynical manipulation' of students and the 'transference of [their] loyalty and devotion' via the practice of guru devotion.
• Newsweek: "It's the fastest growing Buddhist sect in Britain, where it now has about 3,000 members, a thriving publishing business in London and mansions that double as "Dharma Centers" all over the country. It has also been denounced by the London press and the Dalai Lama as a cult that fleeces its own followers."

• To interrupt, do we have a reference for HH the Dalai Lama denouncing the NKT as a cult? I'm not talking about functionaries or Tibetan depts, I mean an actual statement from him or fully attributed to him. Thanks. Magic Pickle 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• We should also not forget that Robert Thurman compared them with the Talibans in Newsweek and
• that Kay identified a fundementalist / exclusive attitute in NKT in his research
• Rick Ross Cult Site: "Ian Howarth, of the support group the Cult Information Centre, said: "We have certainly had complaints about NKT activities, and we are very concerned about them."
• Student Direct: "This week, the director of the Cult Information Centre (CIC), Ian Haworth, told Student Direct that both the FWBO and the NKT were well known to the CIC and that they, "have been, and continue to be, very concerned about the activities of both organisations". "Both the NKT and the FWBO are accused of aggressive recruitment, contradicting the normal Buddhist etiquette of responding to invitation. As a consequence they have become Britain's richest and fastest growing Buddhist organisations."
• The Guardian cites: "A lot of young people go into the NKT from a drug-oriented life and find the emotional force of the cult is tremendously compelling. Many recruits do not know that the NKT is a branch of one school of Tibetan Buddhism. They think that the NKT is Tibetan Buddhism and they don't have the context to question what they're involved in," the Buddhist teacher added."
• You’ll find NKT also at the Site of the Cult information Center http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/links.html
• Then there are ex-members (like me) who see it in that way and also other see: “These people are acting like full-fledged cult-members. Why can't I seem to get away from people wanting me to join a cult?” or Gregory interviewd by Rachael Kohn at ABC Radio National

So I think this gives some evidence to that sentence: "Some critics see the New Kadampa Tradition as a cult." Of course we can improve this point or replace it by a more point of evidence, but not deleteing it so that this thought is vanished completely. For instance we can include Kay's research on NKT: "Drawing on Robert Jay Lifton’s definition of the “fundamentalist self,” Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organizational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism” (p. 110). Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later “fundamentalist” identity."

--Kt66 13:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, Sect is not the same as cult. From the wiki page "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences". So that narrows it down to one article in the Guardian which used the word, 3 references to the same rick ross - Himself, his web site and a link to his web site in the Cult site. The cult site itself only links to all the articles you mention above but has no information of its own to add. The ken Jones article states that none of the groups considered in his article are cults. So we have some ex members, one reference in the guardian and an academic analysis that describes the NKT as fundamentalist, fundamentalist again is not a cult, again from wiki "In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Qu'ran and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.". If you agree to this analysis - lets then look at the remaining sources and write something credible. Best wishes (Robertect 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert, I just recognized it, that "Sect is not the same as cult." This is a linguistic misunderstanding of mine. So please excuse me and thank you very much for pointing out this! So ok we have perhaps to rewrite this... what do you suggest? --Kt66 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As you ask me, I suggest that the key point is the charasmatic leader, an isolation from the mainstream and encouraging a dependency in their followers. Are their any other points which you think are appropriate? Once we agree on these areas I guess you can write that "Some commentators have crticised the NKT for displaying cult like tendencies. The critique of Paul William's, Co-Director of Buddhist Studies at the University of Bristol in England is typical of such criticism when he says it contains "things that you find with an awful lot of what we normally call cults -- a strong, central, charismatic leader and a group that sees itself as over and against the world.¨ [1]' . Once we agree on the scope of the criticism that NKT is a cult I then feel it will also be reasonable to agree on a response to this criticism, probably based on Jim Belither's comments in the same article. What do you think? Best wishes (Robertect 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).

I agree. But 2nd March has started to deepen the points. So I will look later in the context and add some notes. In Germany we have the criterias for "Sekte" they differ from cult criterias. However as the keypoint I read too:

• "is the charasmatic leader, an isolation from the mainstream and encouraging a dependency in their followers". This is obvious. Lets look on that:

• • charasmatic leader: he is charimsatic and skilfull in argueing. I think this everyone can agree. His power position is easy to see. I repeat a paragraph: NKT is based sole on Geshe Kelsang: His books, his teachings, his views, his ordination and the like. All who teach in NKT have to accept him as the highest authority and as stated by NKT brochure of the TTP class: A 35-page manual for the NKT teacher-training programme urges students to "internalise Geshe la's books so that we can quote liberally from them, word for word" and claims "if it is found in the works of Geshe Kelsang it is completely reliable". "The more devotion we have to our Guru the more qualified we are as a Teacher Every NKT Teacher must give exactly the same explanation, otherwise the NKT will disintegrate... Therefore this generation of Teachers must try very hard to come to complete consensus as to what is the correct interpretation of every single section of every one of Geshe-la's books." The Gurdian Even he states (wrongly) in his book The Bodhisattva Vow (No 34) it would be a fault "Preferring to rely on books, rather than on our Spiritual Guide". He comments:"The root of Dharma realizations is sincere reliance on our Spiritual Guide. If we neglect this practice and prefer to acquire our understanding from books we incur a secondary downfall." By this he is enhancing his power and increase the dependence towards him. (By the way Tsongkhapa taught the opposite: if the teacher is not in accordance with the scriptures of the great Indian panditas, he is not a relyable source. The correct meaning of the 34th Bodhisattva vow is "Deprecating him and referring to the letter". This has two meanings: not to be disrespectful to the teacher. And second: not to rely on his word literally. You have to look for the meaning of his words. If his words are in accordance with the scriptures, than you accept it, if not: you should'nt accept it without loosing faith.). Also one of his main teaching (not Sutra, not Mahayana but Vajrayana and taught to the very beginner) is reliance to the Guru (Geshe Kelsang) and seeing the Guru (Geshe Kelsang) as a Buddha. Allthough he is not saying: see me as a Buddha, it is obvious that he is implying this because he is the Root Lama of all the NKT followers and because they "are Kadampas and putting all the words into practice" pure Kadampas and pure practioners will see him as a Buddha, a faultless being. If they are confused of his behaviour (like many in Berlin 2000 were), if they do not understand his actions they say: He is a Buddha, he knows, I don't know, I have a deluded mind. He is omnicinece, he knows the future. I don'T know. --> This is surely a sign of a attainment, isn't it?
  • an isolation from the mainstream: He is isolated from the monastic community, from the buddhist monastic order, from the democratic rules of the Vinaya. He established himself an own order with own rules where he gives and takes the vows of the monks and nuns as he likes. (Quote: Jim Belither NKT Secretery "Issues about monks disrobing are a matter between the monk and his spiritual teacher.". The Guardian: Sect disrobes British monk) Also experienced by myself he wrote in a personal letter and a public letter to me and other NKT-monks and nuns (the public letter I still have): 'if you follow that teacher (a NKT representativ which he disrobed before because he felt she is betraying him) you will loose also your vows and are no monk or nun anymore.' Not mainstream at all, against the Vinaya, against the Teaching. The Sangha has to speak about such issues and decide it in a democratic way. To found an own order different from the Buddhas Rules: as far as I know only Devadatta (the cousin of the Buddha) tried to do that. Also NKT is separated from genuine teachers (different from the western newcomer-NKT-teachers (some get the Gen title or the Venerable after two years ;-). This is due to that the do not invite high and widely respected buddhist authorities as Dharma teachers to their centers. This is also not mainstream. The separation from the whole buddhist community Geshe Kelsang belonged to and his fellow countrymen is also not mainstream (especially for Buddhists). All the other Buddhist teachers (Tibetan, Thervada, Zen...) and their centers know and accept where they belong to and where they are rooted in and have contact and exchange to them. The isolation from the mainstream is also in NKT views like the literally taken view that the teacher is a Buddha and the egalitarianism of one Dharma bundle for all. Completely not mainstream. This contradicts compassion which sees the induviduality of the beings. (even Kay in his resaerch pointed out this uniformity of belief and practice) to sum up: so not mainstream at all.
  • encouraging a dependency in their followers: this is be done by different ways: First we have as stated above the dependency on Geshe Kelsang and how this is established. Than the NKT views increases this dependency: He is the Root Guru for all. To leave the Root Guru will lead to hell. Geshe Kelsang said "I am NKT" by this follows if one leaves NKT he leaves Geshe Kelsang by this he will be born into hell for countless aeons...there is no explanation how you go to distcane to your guru if you can not rely on him anymore. But the nice hell threats or in the soft way: you will loose all your attainments and never get new attainments in the future. Than we have the thoughts of exclusivness which is supported by a typically euphemistic speech: NKT is somethng very special. so special, so pure. Combined with exaggerated announcments of "a fully accomplished meditation master and internationally renowned teacher of Buddhism", "complete lineage" and the like. This is accompanied by creating the fear: to mix this "pure and stainless tradition" (by reading other books, going to other teachers, receiveing empowerments by other masters - now more moderate dealt with but of course only GKG is right and people are adviced in the NKT forums to rely mainly on him and visualize him as the main teacher - which is nonsense because you have the choice). So by this two enemies arise: the people who destroy the pure and stainless tradition (by fearing to mix it or like HHDL, who according to NKT "broke with his Root Guru" and is thereby a condemned (will go to hell)) which leads to a close mind or feelings of guilt to read other books than geshe-las (especially for Nuns and monks). Then the fear of going to hell or loose the attainments if leaving NKT/GKG. Thirdly NKT increases the dependency by claiming: they are a complete path to enlightenment. By this they suggest (and also said this), that nothing else is needed for enlightenment than Geshe Kelsang and his books. Because they content all what is needed. Indeed they say this is the special and the quickest path to enlightenment. By announcing to have the pure, complete and the very quick path, very special, and the only existing mahamudra lineage directly from Manjushri (see Gen Thubten) alive today they emotionally push up the people to step into that organisation and stay there. Even the three NKT study programs serve for a basis to increase the dependency: You get here all what you need and ALL is based on Geshe Kelsang, his books, his followers, his new style ordination: If you leave the NKT-TTP: noone outsite NKT will accept you as a Buddhist teacher in center you have to restart a new...--Kt66 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Then lets hear another ex-NKT-member on these points: "Samten (The former chief TTP teacher in NKT) made it very clear that, whatever initiations people had received in the past and commitments they had taken, they had to accept GKG as their root-guru, practice their sadhanas in such a way as to put GKG at the centre of it (rather than visualizing their previous' gurus blessings) and stop relying on non-NKT books IF pure buddha-dharma (GKG's version) was to remain alive in this world. And yes, Samten did claim that continuing to include other teachers in our practice would have an adverse effect on GKG's health, possibly shortening his lifespan. Samten told us that these instructions came from GKG himself." see link [2]

We have different other criterias for NKT too:

• there is "love bombing" for newcomers (later if your are in the group and you get sick they will not care for you much),
• you are absorbed in extensive activity for the group - bulding up and running centers, giving teachings and traveling to branch centers and the like (that's why you have less time to reflect critical your own situation or to care for sick NKT-friends),
• your selfesteem is undermined by saying that your mind is not relyable and all faults you see are a projection of your own mind (a Buddha sees no faults they claim),
• the power of the leader is manifested by saying he is a Buddha, because all teachers are Buddha.
• the latter two serve as a kind of "mind control" you'll see faults of NKT/GKG as your own fault (you blame yourself accusing yourself to have a "impure mind")
• (as a result of the latter some ex-members feel guilty. This is a sign after leaving a cult)
• "purity" and "exclusivness". Through the system of talking of the "pure" NKT-lineage, its singularity and purity, the purity of NKT practitioners, what special Karma you have to meet NKT and how pure Geshe-la and other NKT teachers are. By establishing the fear of the demon to mix "this pure traditions" (and other things) they create a feeling of something very special on which NKT people get enthusiasm and are attracted to NKT. The signs of this can be seen easily.
• next is that thy have a concept of the enemy and this is the Dalai Lama who destroys "this pure and stainless tradition"

So I was myself teacher in NKT and EPC, I was in Manjushri Centre different times, I know a lot of ex-members from different coutries and the stories are always the same. On the other hand it can differ from place to place a little but the pattern is obvious I think. So I will think on it the next days and read the discussion below. --Kt66 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A point of clarity - Dr Williams is a former co-director at Bristol. He was a co-director when the article was written, but history inexorably moves forwards. (20040302)

I also am concerned about using the term cult. Interested parties should at least read the extensive WP article at cult for thoughts about what it means. (20040302)

If we agree that a cult is delineated by the criteria: A charismatic leader, an isolation from the mainstream, and encouraging a dependency in followers., do we agree that the NKT is a cult? (20040302)

Dear 20040302, thanks for the suggestion. You won't be suprised to hear that I do not think the NKT is a cult, but I am happy to discuss the matter and for people to express this view in the wiki article, as long as it can be balanced by other views. The opening paragraph of the cult page is a useful place to start. "In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics."

From this we can see the NKT meeets the first part of point one a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement), however it goes on to say devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream here we have point of contention. The practices of NKT are widely agreed to accord with mainstream buddhist teachings except for two unusual features. The first is Dorje Shugden, which was until the 1990's fairly mainstream - i.e. it was practiced by nearly all the major Gelug lama's who taught in the west - so I think we can discount that point (also we may site a lack of devotion to HHDL, but this is closely related to the Shugden issue). The second is that in NKT there is only one recognized living lineage Guru, so whilst the teachings of Guru Yoga are fairly standard, the unusual feature is that the Guru in the context of NKT can only be Geshe Kelsang. This point is also made clear in other parts of the wiki article - does this point alone provide ground to call NKT a cult?. The answer, NO, I think comes from further consideration of the points below, but I would also support a negative response to this question I would also site my own experience of Geshe Kelsang advising other people not to commit to his practice and follow other teachers, this is also true of Gen-la Samden the Deputy Spiritual Director of NKT.

The next point is "Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture." As I have argued above the NKT belief system is not particularly novel, the practices are, if anything, quite traditional so we are left with ¨opposes the interests of the mainstream culture¨. Here again the answer is mixed, I do not think the NKT can be considered to oppose the interests of mainstream culture, unless we refer to the Tibetan Diaspora. Examples, at least for the UK of our integration into the mainstream would be

• You can see favourable NKT articles in the BBC web site, which is the national and very mainstream broadcaster in the UK.

There seems to be a NKT-friend behind the BBC Articles. I sent them an email and asked to correct some paragraphs like that Geshe Keslang is a Rinpoche and that NKT is not the ancient Kadampa Tradition and the like. The article has many faults and is based on NKT advertisement, like: "In 1976 a group of people from the Manjushri Buddhist Centre, then the Manjushri Institute, in Cumbria, invited Tibetan Kadampa teacher..." --> He was not invited from "a group of people from the Manjushri Buddhist Centre" and he is also no "Kadampa Teacher", he is a Gelug Teacher...I asked them to ask specialists if the don't believe me. They did not even answer or did anything to correct the faults...so I think BBC is not reliable if you ask on NKT ;-) --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• A few years ago the local Cumbrian radio station broadcast the special puja performed in the temple at Manjushri to celebrate the new year.

Ok they invited them and they came. Who knows a lot of NKT? But NKT spread a lot of faulty facts about them self and have a really good publicity work...--Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• The temple at Manjushri was opened by the head of the local council and has won awards including a plaque for its contribution to the local environment.

OK. This happened in Germany with NKT also even when the mayor and government was warned by christian cult specialist. They ignored these warnings because it was to important to their region (business)...--Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I lived for many years at the NKT center in London where our efforts to get a licence to teach public classes were succesful because the other residents of the street supported it (I should add the center had already been there for several years, the need for a licence was due to new legislation) - I think even one objection would have stopped the licence application. I can assure you this center has excellent relations with the local community.

Ok. fine. Scientology has a good network of Professors, artists and academics to advertise with that persons. What I want to say: a cult is identified by his structure and not in what way the structure is hidden. (Please take it not personal my remarks!) --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the attitude encouraged in individual practitioners we can quote numerous NKT sources and teachings of Geshe Kelsang where they are encouraged to live externally according to mainstream society, i.e. don't abandon your family, don't give up your job, cherish others, be a good person!

Yes this is says, but we habe the problem that what he says and how he acts is different. Just read the following thread someone sent me today: we have the same there as discussed yet so many and this is a sign for a cult that you will allways see the same pattern: [3] The funny thing about the NKT is that it prints one thing and does another. Even if you look how NKT tried to hide that Geshe Kelsang did not wish for reading other books and read this comment: it is always the same pattern...--Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• UK centers made prayers for the farming communites affected by Mad Cow Disease!.

And Geshe-la sold his car for a famine. Fine. NKT know what they do quite well and use their good actions to make announcemnts with this. Why they do this (a car was sold and NKT publishes this in the NKT history broshure)? Why they do not tell their people that His Holiness the Dalai Lama serves for the monastic order for the full ordained nuns and donated 50.000 Euros to reastablish the full nun order among the Tibetan community. Why Geshe-las does not care for his field of kindness (the Tibetans)? read the thread-link above, there is truth in it: "Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of tibetan buddhists are suffering at the hands of the PRC - K Gyatso is himself a tibetan by birth, so the NKT direct their energy towards helping these people? NO. "We're not tibetan buddhists!", the NKT scream, "and K Gyatso has taken out UK citizenship, so it's not of his concern." Well, ok, fair enough, BUT when the Dalai Lama as head of the tibetan state (in exile) makes proclamations about shugden, then suddenly tibetan politics becomes the NKT's concern. A barrage of insults, criticisms and rather nasty activities pour down upon the head of a man who (as far as I can see) works tirelessly for the benefit of others. All the NKT are concerned about seems to be the impediment to their recruitment drive - how dare anyone criticise MY dharma protector! Is this a dharma mind or a self-cherishing mind?"

• Since around 1998 NKT has actively endeavoured to reach out to other religious and Buddhist groups, so it has joined Buddhist networks and many of its students represent NKT in local inter-faith groups, I did this in London as part of a group organised by the Unitarian church.

Dear Robert NKT tries to hide always where they were not accepted! You have to reveal it step by step and even if you have the slightest misunderstanding they let you in that if it is for their own benefit. So NKT established in WP they are accepted in Buddhist National Associations. I could only check three countries: Swiss, Austria and Germany. Only in Swiss they are accepted but not allowed to have a leading function. I think this we will find in other coutries too but than I have to call and talk to all of them. Never NKT from their site would state: yes it is like this. Not being honest, not being open. Always blurring. Even Germany and Austria: NKT claimed: We never asked to become a member! I talked with the persons in charge and they said: When NKT (in Austria and Mamaki Center in Germany) asked to become a member we gave a signal they will have no chance to become one. So thats why NKT did not asked officially. Do they tell this? No. Another example: As a NKT center us was denied to partake in a religious continuous dialoge and become a part of a quite famous organisations (operating worldwide I have to remember the name) on interreligious dialoge, because NKT is seen by them as a destructive sect. (I phoned with the person in charge as a NKT teacher directly to convince him that we ar not a destructive sect ("Sekte" or cult) - but I couldn't convince him ;-). During the World-Expo2000 in Hannover also a Dharma-Expo 2000 was held and all the buddhist groups came. But NKT was denied to take part after the buddhist community dicussed this topic NKT. Do NKT tell this or admit this? No. They never will do this rather they try to tell you the opposite of the facts or that your mind is impure that's why you see the faults or that you have grudge or resentment...

To built relations with other religioue groups does not negelct a possible cultish structure behind a organisation. Such contacts and "exchanges" can be also just one way to hide it and to use such events for self advertisement. Scientology tried to built contact with our NKT center too and invited us for a religious dialogue, so this is no bid deal at all. Also Sokka Gakkai is quite skilfull to organize religious event and uses this for his PR. --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand many Tibetans may feel that NKT harmed the interests of the Tibetan Diaspora by opposing the Dalai Lama's statements on Shugden vociferously in the 1990's. Again for me I feel that as NKT does not exist within the Tibetan diaspora this also does not qualify.

Harm is also to many ex-members! Please don't forget that. For me it is ok. But I have contact with long time members, just recently one with 10 years membership. These wounds of secerianism and cultish structure heals only slowly. But also from the site of GKG: he harms himself. --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting area in the cult article is that "highly publicized cults that purportedly exploited their members psychologically and financially, or that allegedly utilized group-based persuasion and conversion techniques. These techniques may include "brainwashing", "mind control" ("thought reform") and "love bombing".

I can agree this exploitations by NKT. (But in general only the inner circle (dedicated people) not newcomers or sceptical people "who have less faith" - these people are treated like babies so that they will come back.) But of course if you have nothing they can not exploit you but they can ask you to work for the center, they can "inpire" you to spread this "stainless and pure tradition" and how much merit this all will bring to you and how important it is ("The time is degenerated" and "Shugden says NOW IS THE TIME - to spread this stainless tradition" or only "if you have enogh merit you will gain realisations", if your work for Geshe-la this will bring the highest merit (GuruYoga) and then they tell you stories on that so that you believe it), then you will spread the NKT (and collecting merit?) by pin up posters, spread flyers (especially to respected places like chemist's and the like), built up websites and make announments so that people find your center, offer meditation courses and teaching to help the many poor beings without the Dharma (out of pure compassion of course, because we are all so pure Kadampas, pure practitioners)...you can bring the books of Geshe Kelsang in the bookstores and spread them in the libraries. When we were nearly exhausted out of the many activities we did for NKT, the centers, spreading NKT and "Geshe-la", he let us know that he wishes to make a campaign to spread his book Eight Verses of the Mind Training and organize reading and selling events in the different bookstores (this campaign was done all over the world...) Geshe Kelsang wished this, not his publisher! (I remember on that because the responsible NKT teacher was really overstrained and asked me: "How we can do this? But if Geshe-la says this, than it must be possible." I agreed, beacuse "he is a Buddha and all faults come from my mind" ;-)

The financial exploitation (asking new members for loans and asking for money forcefully or in a "inspiring way" (by praising the merits you gain from giving money) is picked up and was stated yet. (I remember one of the articles and an ex-member in a blog or post. I myself can only agree because I myself was busy to "inspire" others to give 100.000 DM for a big NKT-center. We did not think about how to pay the money back. We were to much absorbed to built up NKT centers and finance it. If you ask NKT they will tell you: oh this is just an exception. But it is not if you check it out and listen to past or even present members or read the (critical) press articles on NKT carefully. Especially the "ever so much be busy with something 'very important'" of NKT-monks and nuns is quite symptomatic. This shines even through the most of the press-articles I read on NKT but the reporter do not understand that sign. --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to add further: Even NKT is based on a uncommon exploitations of their nuns and monks. If you are a NKT-monk or NKT-nun, you live normally in their centers and pay for a small room a very high rent (my rent was 300% higher for even a smaller room than before). This high rent is a needed income of NKT to run the center. (As far as I recognized and experienced it.) Not only that you give all you have to NKT (lifetime, energy, money, your life). Instead of supporting the monks and nuns for doing that NKT ask the monks also for high prices for their teachings at the "NKT - festivals" and a reduction is normally not granted. When I once tried to get a reduction it was made so complicated and in a way that I never felt to ask once again. On the other site it is a normal expectation of NKT that the monks and nuns work hard for the organisation ("for the benefit of other"). But outsite of NKT it is the opposite: the teachings for nuns and monks are for free (especially all the teachings from HHDL), even when HHDL teaches in the west, monks and nuns can attend for free and even sometimes the organisators offer money to them (in Paris they donated each monk and nun after the free teachings 60€). Also many western centers I know offer teachings for monks and nuns for free and sometimes also food and accomodation. Also Lama Zopa Rinpoches FPMT cherishes much their monks and nuns and serves them as well as possible. In Tushita Center you can stay two weeks for free and they do it happily. If you want to live with other monastics outsite NKT organisation either it is for free or quite cheap (all together 150€ a month for accomodation and food at Nalanda Monastery in France or if you can not effort, they try to help you or try to find a sponsor....Why they handle it differently? Because they cherish and honor the Vinaya, the rules and the monks and nuns really. --Kt66 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I will go tomorrow to the paragraph below. Please take it not personal. Many Regards, --Kt66 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Group based persuasion and conversion techniques Discussion of NKT often claim that the foundation program and teacher training program "group discussion" is little more than a vehicle to get agreement to the NKT view. On this point it is clear that as a Buddhist class one hopes that the reasoning and examples of our buddhist heritage and experience will help people to arrive at correct conclusion or true paths - I doubt any Buddhist group would disagree with this objective. At the same time a true path depends upon a valid mind or insight and in my experience these are difficult to arrive, also because they are minds, not only words it makes little difference what we or a group say. Also I have always found group discussion to be very lively and and usually drawing on a whole range of views. I remember for example studying Shantideva's Guide, and nothing could persuade some people of the validity of Shantideva's prohibition of sex during the day or dancing. Equally other subjects such as the nature of mind, rebirth, imputation by name etc all produce a wide variety of opinions both in agreement and opposition to the view in the book. For these reasons I don't accept the critique of NKT group discussions. Also if a teacher discourages disagreement, it has also been my experience that they also quickly discourage anyone comming to the classes - not a good basis for a cult;-)

"brainwashing", "mind control" Obviously the point above makes some reference also to this point. In addition I taught meditation classes in London for several years and it may be my teaching, but I think also the state of Londener's minds which causes many people to either fall asleep or else get distracted by mental wondering during guided meditations. Anything the teacher says at this point becomes background noise. NKT teaches meditaions common to many spiritual systems and Mahayana Buddhism. Typically beginer's classes focus on breathing meditation and some black and white breathing. Sometimes there are also meditations of the great scope such as compassion. Of course Buddha intended these would change people's minds but as any one who has tried them will tell you success requires considerable effort on the part of the student, depends on their own wish to gain experience of the practice and not so much on the teacher.

Another criticism of the NKT is that it doesn't teach the history or sociology of buddhism, especially the NKT placein the wider buddhist world. I agree that many NKT practitioners have little knowledge or understanding of what Buddhism is beyond what they are taught in the NKT. Is this cult behaviour? For a small group of Buddhists perhaps - but I don't think so - I anticipate some argument on this point!

Love bombing - Here is a difficult point, people do sometimes get very enthusiastic and feel like the NKT is the greatest thing on earth which might look like love bombing, plus normally the people are very nice. My experience though is that this doesn't last very long and they either disappear quite quickly or settle down and develop a more grounded practice - in the first case no basis to grow a cult and in the second, I don't consider this to be cult like. Je Phabongkha identifies this phenomenon in his advice on the Stages of the Path "Some persons at this point develop sudden and powerful feelings of faith, Impermanence, renunciation, and so on, even without having practiced meditation. They become joyously enthusiastic, thinking these are true spiritual realizations. But soon after, when the intensity of such feelings completely disappears," So again I don't think this is either unique to NKT or a valid basis for calling it a cult.

Financial There is nothing unusual about the fundraising or class prices in NKT - comparable schemes and charges can be seen for example on the www.fpmt.org web site. Also my experience has always been that people are not turned away from a meditation class because they have no money.

These are my thoughts for now, I am sure other will have a different view and I look forward to hearing them. If NKT does harm people or society then it will be good to understand how so that NKT can address these problem's in the future. What I hope is that further discussion will follow 20040302's advice and also refer to ideas in the wiki artice on cults. (Robertect 17:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)).

A brief response

Wow.. What a lot of text in just a few days. I hope that interested parties do not mind that I moved this section onto it's own page.

Robertect, I understand and appreciate your need to be comprehensive - after all, you have every right to be on the defensive regarding this issue. However, I feel that kt66's arguments are pretty sound also.

Personally, I believe that the NKT is indeed a cult – but then (as I see it) being a cult isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, as a student of the Dharma, I am very concerned about the one guru issue, the distancing from the Tibetan community, the discouragement of reading tantras, sutras, and their commentaries not 'prepared' by KG, and yet more concerned about the Vinaya/Schism issue - all of which I feel will have long term damage to the NKT and to Geluk Buddhism as a whole - e.g. look at ISKON and what happened in the years after Prabhupada died. Personally, it is my wish that the NKT can reconcile with the Tibetan community and the Geluk at some time in the near future. My hopes remain rather low.

As for the article itself, it seems clear to me that there exists a criticism of the NKT as a cult (regardless of it's validity - I would be astounded if the NKT were to assent to this label, as it has such negative connotations nowadays!) and, following WP NPOV guidelines (NPOV articles describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate) , it seems sensible to reflect the existence of the debate in the article. I believe that we could all have a wonderful and (endless debate) about whether or not the NKT is in fact a cult - but this would begin to constitute original research, and would have little place on WP. (20040302 09:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

My deep wish is also: "that the NKT can reconcile with the Tibetan community and the Geluk" and especially the monastic order too. Even I wish that GKG gets the ability and clarity to correct himself in this life and reunite with the Sangha and his brothers and sisters from Tibet and his tibetan fellow collegues. (This would be indeed a great Kadampa practitioners compassionate action, I think and well for him too.) As with the article I am open what use it will give to it and agree completely follow the WP NPOV guidelines. But mere hiding the topic I could not agree. --Kt66 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear both, I agree that NKT is criticised as a cult and never said that reference to this discussion should be exclduded from Wiki. Originally however there were no clear reasons for this statement which subsequently made it both difficult to respond to rather intangible. I think that we should find a way to summarise the discussion. Clearly points concerning the Vinaya and the role of Geshe Kelsang are not mine to respond to, but primarily for Geshe Kelsang. I appreciate however the effort Kt has made in expressing his and other people's experiences and hope that as a result this will be a cause for such experiences to end. Also thankyou 20040302 for your good efforts to moderate. (Robertect 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

Dear Robert. Fine. So there seem to be no need to go through the last paragraph on which I did not respond. May the good wishes of us be fulfilled. Thank you both. --Kt66 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all these interesting points. Here are my views if you are interested.

I think the term cult has negative implications, which is why journalists and special groups are concerned about them. I think these 3 issues are - controlling people's minds, removing them from normal society, and making it hard for them to end their association with the group.

Controlling people's minds - this is hard for any Buddhist group to deny to a total extent as Buddhism is about controlling the mind!! However, with my experience of the NKT, there are lots of opporunuties to question and disagree with the points which are made (for eg, at the end of a General Programme class there are opportunities to discuss the points raised and to ask questions to the teacher. I myself was very challenging the first few classes that I went to). I have heard my teacher encourage people to question the teachings as it is better to take them into everyday life if you have challeneged them first rather than just except them. So people have the choice whether they tkae on board the teachings or not.

Removing people from normal society - I still have the same job that I did before I went to an NKT class, have non-NKT friends and still see my family. People teach at my centre who have jobs and a family to support. I asked a regular NKT person about another NKT person - 'did his family mind him coming to the centre?'. He said something along the lines of 'Since he has be coming to the centre, his children are no longer afraid of their dad'. So I think if you were to ask somebdoy on the street 'There is an organisation which help a father have a better relationships with his family, would you call it a cult?' , I think they would say no.

Making it hards to leave. People have different involvements at my centre - some go only once, some once a week, some several times a week, some live there, and so on. So people are totally free to choose their own involvement. I have lived there for nearly 2 years and quite a few people have moved in and out during that time, they have complete freedom to do that. Some people have started the Foundation Programme and stopped after a few weeks or months - they didn't have the time, or didn't like the teachings. I know someone who did FP for about a month and then left and went to a local Zen group instead. Again, I think if you were to ask someone in the street - 'There is an organisation in which people can and do end their involvement anytime they want, do you think it is a cult?', I think they would say no.

So this is my view, only from my own experience, we all probably have different experiences.

All the best

Patrick--Patrick K 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello dear editors - Patrick's posting seems to me to be at the crux of our discussion here. When Kt puts his points it is in the context of the wider Buddhist community whilst the points Patrick and myself make are in the context of the wider society (in this case mainly UK). I think NKT is seen as a cult by many buddhists, but I think it is not seen as a cult by non-Buddhists. I hate to labour this discussion because I appreciate it is very unpleasent for all of us, but I think that we need someone quite removed from Buddhism to make an assesment about the validity of including this point in the main Wiki aricle. Many thanks for thoughts to my suggestion (Robertect 14:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

I disagree regarding the 'cult' nomenclature belonging to one demographic (Buddhists) rather than another. There are plenty of non-Buddhists - especially non-Buddhist ex-NKT (and their families) who consider the NKT to be a cult. My point earlier (which seems to have been missed by Patrick) is that we will never agree about whether or not NKT really is a cult or not. The question we are asking is how to describe the debate. We should not spend further energy attempting to resolve it. Maybe something like:

The NKT is labelled by some as being a cult, which (unsurprisingly, considering the slant given the term by popular media) the NKT deny. As a general rule, such appelations when present are indicative of a negative bias. See cult for further reading regarding this term.

Hmm .. not so good.. but a start. (20040302)

Once again March 2nd, I agree with your direction. I would say that your sentences above are OK, but again maybe Patrick or Kt have some other ideas on the wording. I will also have a think. Thanks again for your effort. (Robertect 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

Hmm. I see a start in it. But it is not clear. Perhaps we inlcude the view of Kay. You have the book. He is reasoning why NKT meets the criterias for a "fundamentalist" identity according to RJ Lifton. I have only the book review by Inken Prohl where she wrote: "Drawing on Robert Lifton’s definition of the “fundamentalist self,” Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organizational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism” (p. 110). Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later “fundamentalist” identity." The point is to summerize that there are these critical views on NKT. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kt66, Robert, Patrick - thanks for the continuing discussion. Kt66, I understand your thoughts, but I feel that there is possibly not much further benefit persuing this issue much further regarding the article. The difficulty with such terms as 'fundamentalism' and 'cult' is that they tend to be addressed as negative terms in the media, and therefore supporters of the NKT will feel particularly defensive about these terms. I tend to concur with Barret: Researchers like David V. Barrett hold the view that classifying a religious movement as a cult is generally used as a subjective and negative label and has no added value; instead, he argues that one should investigate the beliefs and practices of the religious movement. (from cult).

I agree that we can reflect that there are many individuals - within the Buddhist and non-Buddhist communities (as well as scholars) who are quick to identify cultishness and fundamentalism within the NKT (Eg: your cite from Inken Prohl's review of Kay ). Though as I said before, we must find an impartial way of being able to reflect this debate (debate - because it is clear that supporters of NKT are not so happy with such labels), and I hope we can find a way forward with this.

If the NKT article started: "The NKT are a fundamentalist cult that formed due to a personal schism from the Gelukpa school..." I am convinced that many readers would question the impartiality of the article. Similarly if the article started: "The NKT is a pure reflection of Buddha's teachings and offers a fast and safe way to enlightenment..." I am likewise convinced that many readers would question the impartiality of the article. I think you understand my point!

We must remember (that to be good editors on WP we must understand and acknowledge) our own bias regarding an issue and do what we can to redress that bias without relinquishing our expertise. It seems reasonable to mention Kay in relation to the debate (WP likes publications!), but we should not let Kay dominate the paragraph, especially as Kay reflects only one side of the debate. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any apologist publications regarding these appelations - anyone? (20040302 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Addendum - The NKT is also one of two Buddhist 'groups' (along with the FWBO) mentioned on cultinformation - a UK based cult info site. This lists links to media articles from the 'NKT dark years' of '96 through to '99. I appreciate that KG has issued regret for the relevant actions at these times, but bad reputations are easy to gain and hard to lose. (20040302)

I agree to "Though as I said before, we must find an impartial way of being able to reflect this debate" and enjoy going on this process. My part is mere to insist not to swallow that point. I am clear that to indetify a cultish structure is only one way to see NKT. There are different angles with different results too. My insisting on this point is formed by the trials of NKT to negelct every critic and fact which they don't like. From that point of view I am to forceful in this but happy to your moderate NPOV. If we look in the article of Inken Prohl she is criticizing Kay because she felt Kays view to NKT on fundamentalism is not really traceable: "I found one aspect of the book less informative. Apart from the opening statement that the book is the end result of the author’s doctoral research into contemporary forms of British Buddhism, we learn very little about the methods the author applied in the field. Statements from practitioners of both the NKT and the OBC, on which Kay builds his arguments, make it most likely that fieldwork was conducted, but one would have hoped for more information about the conditions, problems, and characteristics of this research. Voices of the members of these two organizations are heard throughout the study, but the reader wonders who they are and, more importantly, what made them join these Buddhist organizations — especially, in the case of NKT, one described by the author as “fundamentalist.” Further, the question arises what the practitioners actually do after or before or in between reading about the teachings they seem to hold important enough to invest their time, energy, and money in. This question is especially pertinent in that, though Kay points that out the exotic sensuality of the rituals of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism contributes to their appeal in the West (p. 7), we actually learn very little about forms of practice in these two organizations, about the aesthetics of their meeting places, the sound of their ceremonies, or the smell of their rooms during their long periods of meditation." I would enjoy if you would write this paragraph, because I feel I am myself to biased to do it. My role was more to not looseing this point. Thanky a lot. --Kt66 10:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

@Patrick

I agree that sometimes writers, scholars and even former members of cults avoid this word. However this word is used to describe a phenomenon which is function, like the word “demon” to. So if Margaret Singer who received a number of honors (Leo J. Ryan Memorial Award, Research Scientist Award, president of the American Psychosomatic Society) uses the word cult we can do it too, especially because the reproaches towards NKT exist. However this does not mean that this is the only possible view on NKT as you show with your contribution. To have different experience does not validate this or that fact. An experience can be a sign of something or not. If there is a cult structure in a group this can be checked out. And as Margaret Singer says: “Cults are not always easy to recognize at first glance” and it is a quite complex topic. As you see I show above some points meeting the criteria’s for a cult. If someone sees something in this or that way can be in correspond with the reality or not. This has to been checked out. The view on the phenomenon depends upon the own knowledge, an unbiased mind, openness and the ability to discriminate correctly.

Thank you for your contribution. --Kt66 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone, hope you are well. I am fine with having something along the lines in the article saying that NKT has been accused of being a cult, because it has been accused. However, I think it is fair that in the section of the article called 'Response by NKT Practioners' us NKTers are allowed to show the 3 points I raised above - that people have opportunities to criticise the teachings; that people involved with the NKT still have a life outside, such as a job and family ; and that people can leave and end their association whenever they want. I think this is important because I feel that when some people read the word 'cult' these 3 issues come to mind, and I would like it to be clear to the reader that these 3 issues are not applicatble to the NKT.

As for the points which Kt66 has raised, I would just like to add -

In the NKT, the 'Gen' name is for people who are ordianed and have been a residential teacher for 4 years ('kadam' is used for lay residential teachers of 4 years).

Seeing the teacher as a Buddha. This is from [[4]] , which is the link KT66 put on the discussion page about the vows.

Developing confidence that our teachers are Buddhas The first point under this is developing the confidence that our teachers are Buddhas. Again this is talked about mostly from a tantric aspect. In the Theravada tradition or when you take refuge and precepts, you talk about your teacher as a representative of the Buddha. In Mahayana, you try and see your teacher as a manifestation of the Buddha. And then in Vajrayana, you try and see your teacher as a Buddha.

So I don't think the NKT is outside of the mainstream for saying that the teacher is a Buddha.

Cheers Patrick--Patrick K 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Ptarick, thank you for your points. It is clear that in cults peoples are not bound physically rather with psychological tricks. To your three points:

• 'NKTers are allowed that people have opportunities to criticise the teachings;'

Do you have a reference for it? About 1 1/2 year ago the lay FP-Teacher of the Berlin main center was displaced one week after she advised to read another book than Geshe Kelsangs. The week later a "more faithful" monk led the FP class and a person who brought the advised non-Geshe-la-book to the FP class was said: "This book is not wished for here." Because GKG appoints the NKT-Teachers it is clear that this is his policy. If it is not even possible to advise another book than Geshe-las in the teaching class the much more it is maculature to say: you can critisize the teachings; but if it is done really to critisize NKT it is suppressed or it is stated: your critic is coming from your negative and impure mind. "If we have a pure mind; we'll see no faults." (The latter is also described by posts of past members: they invite you for critic but if really done they say the fault lies in you.)

• the isolation from the social environment is normally not findable by lay persons but NKT monks and nuns. They work in general that hard and much that they have still no time for further social contact outsite NKT. The situation is especially isolated for nuns and monks who live in the centers. They have the job to spread and teach the programs to work for the center and spread and give lectures of Geshe Kelsangs books in bookstores and organize and run his organsiation/centers. In the beginning they do this quite enthusiastic later they get exhausted and some can not keep the NKT-ordination rules, because they lack the self introspection which is coming from focussing onto yourself because they are to busy involved to work for NKT. If this happens they get normally no support or compassion. Them is not allowed to give back the robes properly (Geshe Kelsang does not wish this (he wrote this in the broshure for NKT monks and nuns) as it is allowed by the Buddha: to end the training. Geshe Kelsang denies this. Instead if a monk or nuns will end his ordination he/she is treated like an outcast and is forced to not visiting the center for one year. This creates much pressure and isolation too. Next point: A NKT teacher I know was so exhausted from working for NKT and recognized correctly that his delusions rather increased than decreased asked Geshe Kelsang to stop teaching for NKT and rather focus upon the training of the own mind to overcome that many delusions he recognized. Geshe Kelsangs answer was: I do not allow this: 'Now is the time to spread that tradition.' Perhaps you do not see or understand the situations of NKT monks and nuns in the centers and their hard work (business). To give tasks to the followers that they have to work around the clock is a way to control the social environment. So if you look just to your sitauation as a lay follower not living in a center, this is one perspective. What I said is not only my experience and obervation critical NKT people told me this too as a concern they have.
• 'and that people can leave and end their association whenever they want.'

Of course you can say: you can leave us, or course nobody will hinder to leave NKT physically. In cults the way to bind people is based on skilfull psychological bonds. The way it works with NKT I described above. If one have the courage or even ignorance to ignore the psychic bonds which NKT establishes to their followers than you can leave.

If you get nowadays in NKT the Gen title "for people who are ordianed and have been a residential teacher for 4 years" this includes that Buddhist ordained newcomers teach at the center for four years without Gen title and get it after thsi trial period. It is funny that NKT claims to have qualified teachers there. (A point which is not shared even by NKT friends I know, even they say: we lack really good teachers)

As with the seeing the teacher as a Buddha: it is a Tantric Teaching, not for newcomers and is not to taken literally. But it is taught in NKT to newcomers (we emphasize the "Guru Yoga" - for more see the discussion here) and is related to Geshe Kelsang (he is a Buddha) and is not differentiated much. To have only one Spiritual Guide for all (Geshe Keslang) and the cult which is in NKT on him is uncommon in all the Buddhist tradition. It is not mere that point, this point is accomponied by GKG teaching: If we are pure we'll see our Spiritual Guide as a Buddha. This is like the tale of the Emperor's New Suit and the most NKT believers swallow this tale. To get this point one has to visit non NKT centers and look around in the different traditions and has to listen to other Buddhist teachers as well and use the common sense. The Buddha taught of the five kinds of fault teachers. A teaching never heard in NKT. For a differentiated view on seeing a teacher as a Buddha see also: Seeing a Mentor as a Buddha

Regards, --Kt66 11:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, I know this is a discussion with Patrick but my blood pressure rises reading what you write not because I don't believe you say but because I can't believe such things could happen in the same NKT I know. We had such different experiences I don't know where to begin. Almost point by point I had a different, and positive, experience. The two points I would particularly mention are 1) reccomending other books and 2) Regarding the teacher as Buddha. 1) Reading other books, I agree NKT emphasises, indeed only teaches, the study of Geshe Kelsang's books but people also read other books by Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers. Whilst it was rare within my actual FP and even TTP classes, other Buddhist books were discussed or recommended including by our resident teacher (admittedly in her case it tended to be biographies such as Cave in the Snow or accounts of Tibetan practitoiners such as Fire Under the Snow). Of course we studied Geshe Kelsang's books, but it happened that other books would come and go - to mention two I borrowed from long time ordained Sangha residents of the center - Cutting Through Spirtitual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa and of course Je Phabongkha's Liberation. We also kept some old copies of the Tibetan Review and Thich Naht Hanh's Old Path White Clouds in our informal library, (not as a policy I might add, we didn't go out and buy them for the purpose) but they somehow accumulated in the center and it seemed like a good place to put them. I refer to Heruka Buddhist Center in London not a little off the way center, indeed Geshe-la stayed there a couple of times and nothing was ever remarked on these things. Also we tried a few times to organise informally a sort of reading group as a way to relax, where different people would bring in classic Buddhist texts or stories and read them out loud, this took place in the gompa, and caused no problem.

The second point is regarding teaching the recognition of the Spiritual Guide as a Buddha to beginners, I don't accept this. Firstly look in the book aimed at beginners, Introduction to Buddhism, it has no mention at all of the topic. Also Guru Yoga is not covered explicitly in Universal Compassion or Eight Steps to Happienss which are other common source books for teaching General Program (beginners classes). The subject is taught in Joyful Path (as it is in Je Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo which also makes the identification of the teacher as Buddha explicit, quoting from both sutra and the Root Tantra of Vajrapani). Apart from Joyful Path this practice is only taught in the texts of Highest Yoga Tantra none of which are taught on Foundation Program - which is the intermediate level. The practice is also taught during the commentry to tantric empowerements, although here again for the lower Tantra deities only in passing, "We should have faith in Mother Tara recognising her as inseperable from the Guru", that sort of thing. There is cetainly no forcing of people to take this view and no constant banging on about it. In my experience we tried to follow Geshe Kelsang's advice to make this practice private and one which to be authentic can only come gradually. Elsewhere Geshe Kelsang teaches that if we find a practice causes our delusions to increase we should put it to one side until we understand the practice better or can practice it correctly. So if thinking GKG or any other teacher is a Buddha makes someone develop pride or other delusions it is quite clear according to NKT that they should put this practice to one side as explained above.

Finally you constantly say that Geshe Kelsang does not teach to check if our teacher is teaching in accordance with Buddha. Again this is untrue both from his public teachings and also quoting from his books. Below is an excerpt from Great Treasury of Merit.

In Ornament for Mahayana Sutras, Maitreya says that through out the entire universe there is no one wiser than Buddha. Buddha understands directly and simultaneously all objects of knowledge and realizes the true nature of all phenomena. If we have faith in Buddha we should practices only those instructions that do not contradict his teachings. If we follow instructions that contradict Buddha we will cause the degeneration of the Buddhadharma in this world. Similarly, if we claim to be a Buddhist Teacher but give teachings that contradict Buddha we will be destroying Buddha's doctrine. Therefore if we consider ourselves to be Buddhists we should take great care to practice those teachings that originally come from Buddha. We should be careful not to be influenced simply by the reputation of a particular teacher or book, but should check to see whether or not they are authentic. Even if we are told that by hearing a particular teaching or by reading a particular book we will attain enlightenment quickly, we should still be cautious and examine it authenticity first.p41"

It is of course a profound subject and open to much misunderstanding, I am very sorry that there seems to have been so much misunderstanding amongst the NKT practitioners you encountered but please don't assume this is the common or consensus view in NKT.

Finally I lived in an NKT center for 5 and a half years during which time I was a director of the center and also a teacher so I know quite well what it is like to be at the very heart of an NKT center. Whilst I am on that point, re your mention of supporting the Sangha, we always tried very hard to gather funds to sponsor the sangha and we offerered a free refuge to Sangha memebers and resident teachers on several occaisions. I don't doubt what you saw but I do say every case is different and also Geshe Kelsang's advice differs very much from one person to another. (Robertect 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)).

---

Dear Robert sorry for the stress I created for you and other members and thank you for your contribution. I enjoy your different experience and Patrick’s too. I think there is no problem to accept all three of them. What makes the point so difficult is to see and accept, that there are that contradicting experience. As far as I understand this is typical for NKT. I would not stay for four years in NKT without having good experience too. If you look to the different contributions in the internet you will see: there are most time quite pro or quite contra positions.

My personal present understanding is:

As far as I understand a sectarian view is common in NKT and is directly rooted in GKG’s kind of thinking and Shugden. On the other hand there are also some less individuals who are more open and as far as this is useful for NKT (to attract members), it is accepted. Also Geshe Kelsang announces in the public nice things which sounds open but his acting is different from this if he feels loosing control and power over his centres. This I experienced myself with a lot of other people (and a successful NKT representative more open than others and disrobed by Geshe Kelsang personally in a quite strange way); and it was told me by many other members and ex-members of NKT too and I stated it often and with many examples (and of course there is more with it). So for instance the radical and fundamentalist behaviour: What brings a group of people of NKT to organize demonstrations against ex-members like Lama Caroline from Italy (now living at Lama Gangchens Centre where many ex-NKT found refuge)?

But instead of fighting who is right and who is wrong I think you and I have to find out: Why we have these different contradicting experience. NKT member stell me: my bad Karma or less merit or impure view. Ok one way of thinking. But where there is a bad experience there is also a performer of actions and his underlying views.

The only way to understand this was for me: to introspect the own mind (I found much pride and wrong views and the inability to be self-critical when I was with NKT) and the views which are present in NKT and how this is interdependent and be open to the critic to others and try to understand where this is coming from and how all that phenomenons are interdependent and based upon each other.

Perhaps you never were in the inner circle of NKT because you are to open. And NKT is skilful not to overburden their non-inner-circle-members. There is a huge difference between inner circle and lay members who live outside NKT centres. You can start an own check up by finding out how many NKT nuns and monks teacher read Tsongkhapas Lamrim Chem Mo and why they didn’t do it. Than start a Lamrim Chenmo Discussion group and invite your NKT friends to the NKT centre to study/discuss this great text. Just do it and get some experience. (Please hang up also a poster which announces this discussion/study group in the Manjushri Main Centre during the NKT-festival and observe what will happen….)

To show you some examples of what is taught in NKT too, I will put here just one of some commentaries sent to me by an ex-member, written by NKT teacher Ryan Enken as a reply for someone who said she is using Geshe Michael Roaches meditation tapes on Lamrim and is inspired by these:

“Perhaps we can divide spiritual instructions into three categories:

1. NKT instructions
2. Other Buddhist instructions
3. Non-Buddhist instructions

If one has chosen Geshe-la as their SG, then clearly everything in the first category can be relied upon 100%. Instructions in the third category are so clearly distinct from NKT instructions that there is no real risk of us mixing the two or growing confused because the distinctions are clear. An NKT practitioner can go into a Church, see somebody praying to Jesus, and be inspired to have similar faith in their SG. Just because they are inspired in this way doesn't mean they themselves start praying to Christ. Seeing the pure spiritual path of somebody else helps inform the´practitioner's own path, like triangulating one's position off of the stars in the sky.

The real problems come in category 2. Unless we are already a Buddha, there is a real danger that we can read some Buddhist instructions from some other tradition and not realize that they are specific to that other tradition and don't apply within the context of our tradition - or at least don't apply in the same way. We then take on board this other instruction and integrate it into our overall system of belief not knowing that we are putting adiesel engine part in our combustion engine. We then build all sorts of other ideas on top of that instruction until eventually our understanding gets quite confused. We see this all the time. Personally, I don't feel it is safe for me to read other Buddhist instructions because there is a risk I will put into my pure Kadampa engine something that doesn't belong.

Everybody is of course free to do as they wish, but in your particular case, I would strongly recommend that you put all of your eggs into the NKT basket. Then you can know that 100% of your spiritual activities are taking you towards the door I know you wish to take. It is precisely because there are so many similarities between what you are listening to and what the NKT is saying that there is a great danger of you inadvertently mixing - a thing I know you don't want to do. My suggestion if you want your lamrim meditations to be guided is to request Geshe-la to guide them within the context of your meditation.

Establish direct inner communication with him, and request him to help you find the appropriate objects of meditation, etc. If you have faith and a pure motivation, he will definitely guide you. Nobody can guide a meditation better than Geshe-la. Perhaps in the short run it may seem less good than the tapes (Geshe Michael Roaches meditation tapes on Lamrim), but in the long run you will discover it is infinitely better. Geshe-la said at the Summer Festival a few years ago that he would take us by the hand and lead us every step of the way to enlightenment. The voyage is an internal one, so we need to learn how to reach out our hand to him inside our heart and to learn how to be guided by him internally in all of our spiritual activities. It takes a while to learn how to do it, but it is definitely worth the effort. Ryan“

This shows clearly some of the points I raised up yet.

• NKT is something different (even different to Gelug Lamrim!)
• NKT is 100% relyable - implying: we do not know if others Dharma is relybale too. This is telling indirectly: you go a risk using other Dharma.
• establishing fear to "mix" (meaning using other sources than NKT): "there is a great danger of you inadvertently mixing"
• Saying: "Everybody is of course free to do as they wish" but than telling the opposite of this in a skilful way: "but in your particular case, I would strongly recommend that you put all of your eggs into the NKT basket."

And what are the concerns of NKT beginners?

“This is very timely for me and maybe others as we look forward to events on Guru Yoga and relying on the Spiritual Guide. My question is a beginner and basic one- how do I gain the conviction that my SG Geshe-la, is a Buddha? When I check, my heart believes it- when I ask myself how I know, I find I have no direct experience I can point to other than that the teachings I have put into practice work, and the nature of the teachings are 'living'- meaning that I find what I need for the moment, and varies depending on the moment. how many times I've read something I've read before but 'never noticed it said that' kind of thing. Maybe that's good enough for now.I'm sure the conviction will grow over time and experience- but if there's a wisdom way to quicken the process, I'm interested in it. I believe my Resident Teacher is an emanation of or a Buddha and he says Geshe-la is a Buddha- in fact, often when I think of my teacher the thought of Geshe-la arises with it, like two images overlayed. I only found this tradition in April (2004), so I know very little.“

This is crazy. Sorry.

As with using other books: GKG praises in his books the texts of Tsongkhapas, but when a friend of mine went to the NKT resident teacher (a NKT representative!) and asked him to read the Lamrim Chen Mo: This NKT representative said: oh the translators are not authentic I think and the book is dedicated to HHDL, so it is perhaps not so good to read it… When we wished to install a library in our new NKT center, the assistant of GKG asked excited: "But only Geshe-las books?!"

I think the outside behaviour has changed because of the many critics NKT was faced to. But the distorted ideas on Guru devotion and Guru is still there. It is so "funny" in the WP GE to talk with NKT members: they argue exactly as I showed here. I met members who are really confused because of a completely misunderstanding on the emptiness topic. One said: there is no death. Death is mere a name. He said further: you are a Buddha. I said: no! He said: When I label you as a Buddha, you are a Buddha, because all is mere name. The point is, he said, to use the most beneficial labelling. (He is one of the many talking and thinking in that way). I showed him that he is confused on the conventional reality. Then he felt relieved a little bit and said: I can not talk in that way with people from NKT I am quite lonely because noone outside NKT understands me. Another woman said she is so impure because at work the people are arguing and she does not see that they are Dakas and Dakinis (a 10 years NKT-member!). I asked the director of our NKT-centre to look after the fishes in the glass because they have to less oxygen and are ringing with their lives. He looked into that glass: Oh this is just the dance of the Dakas and Dakinis and felt there is nothing to do for the fish’s lives. There is that much crazy stuff….

As with the Guru. Of course Geshe-la SAYS check it. But on the other hand he is teaching: “a pure mind will see the teacher as a Buddha” and is this not what we wish: having a pure mind? And then how can a newcomer check if the teacher realised emptiness, keeps his vows and is really unbiased compassionate? To check properly requires much Dharma-knowledge, time, an unbiased attitude and discriminating wisdom, normally not present in western mind. Rather the newcomer is pushed up in NKT: We have the pure and quick path and in one life you can attain enlightenment. This is just stimulating the ego thinking and greed. HHDL tells the opposite: slowly, be careful, check properly he warns of the dangers of reliance to qickly and the like.

When a friend of mine complained on the behaviour of a NKT teacher who brought GKG many centres GKG answered: “If you develop Bodhicitta in your mind, you’ll see the Bodhicitta in your teacher too.” and neglected the critic completely. Later at the summer festival he said something like: I choosed good teachers for you so love them… Later he expelled that teacher claiming: she is so selfish, guilty and the like, (because she was recognized as a Tulku and Tulkus are not allowed in the NKT's internal rules) and then he scolded that the centre is not looking like all the other NKT centres it looks to Tibetan…he threaded us: if you follow that teacher you will loose your vows as monks and nuns, you are no monks and nuns anymore if you follow that teacher…and there is more.

I let it here as it is. This will lead to endless discussion. One has to find out oneself what is going on and why there are that many different stuff. Most NKT members will think: oh this is due to their bad Karma but I do not have these experiences so this is due to my good Karma. And feel happy with this. Or this is because of their (critics) impure minds and my mind is not that impure, how lucky I am.

The point is: in this is a deep chance for a great learning process. If one accepts these different POV’s and search for the answer of the powers which leads to them, one will surely get an answer and more rich. However I will stop talking on that further. Thank you and Patrick for sharing your experience and openess and moderate responses and exuce please all the bad feelings I raised in you. yours --Kt66 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, thankyou very much for sharing your experience also - I am sure there is much benifit to be gained from contemplating your points. I hope that these efforts will indeed be a cause for clear thinking and clear minds in which Buddha-Dharma, who ever the teacher or teachers will flower and swiftly overwhelm the weeds of self grasping and self cherishing. Best wishes (Robertect 07:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)).

Dear Robert, thank you. I wish you and Patrick, Geshe-la and all the NKT friends all the best. So we can continue on the article I think (and working on our mind too). Take care and thank you and Patrick really very much, because your contributions balance my POV and experience and show a different angle. --Kt66 09:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, these are all very interesting points, thanks for making them. As for the article, how about putting this in -

"The NKT has been accused of being a cult because...[put in the main points here - only 1 teacher? only 1 type of sanga? no links to Tibetian authorities?...]. NKT practioners note that people are given the opportunity to criticise the teachings, some teachers and practioners in the NKT have a family and a job, and people are free to (and do) leave the organisation whenever they want."

Probably not NPOV so please be honest with your views! As for Kt66 not being a Buddha, in the Monty Python film 'The Life of Brian' they say 'Only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah'!! All the best, and I too am away till the end of next week. Patrick--Patrick K 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)