Talk:New Kadampa Tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article New Kadampa Tradition, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Kadampa Tradition article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archive

I have also archived the last discussions. It seems they have come to an end. Thank all of you. Regards, --Kt66 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterhouse reference

Please give the book title and first name of the author Waterhouse who is referenced in this article. Are the Waterhouse quotes simply being taken from David Kay's book? Emptymountains 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I am im Italy and have no access towards the texts. What quote do you mean? Some quotes are from Kay who is referring to Waterhouse. For details I have to check. Thank you for all your efforts! I have seen some changes in the ordination section. The Ritual in NKT is not the Sojong Ritual. The actual Sojong Ritual is different from what they do. Especially for a real Sojong there must be four Bhikshus present what is surely not the case. So I will change that passage into Sojong-like Ritual or better Purification Ritual. Maybe you'll not agree, than let's discuss how to change it or improve as you like. Thanks, --Kt66 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kt66 aka Tenzin Paljor

Just so you know, kt66 has a personal agenda to undermine the New Kadampa tradition and is an ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. As Tenzin Paljor, he has been on chat groups and blogs all over the internet for years trying to persuade people to abandon the New Kadampa tradition and Dorje Shugden. Please therefore be on the look out for potential POV bias and disinformation in his edits of this article or any article to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang, or the New Kadampa Tradition. (Wisdomsword (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Dear Kt66, there are nine references to three works by "Waterhouse" in this article: notes 44, 62, 96, 112, 119, and 135 refer to Waterhouse 1997, while notes 50 and 101 refer to Waterhouse 1977, and note 144 refers to Waterhouse 2000. However, there are no books or articles by Waterhouse listed in the Reference section. We are not even given Waterhouse's first name! Also, discussion comments on the ordination section should be addressed to user Rnchn, not to me. Any changes I made in the section were simply attempts to correct grammar, spelling, and order of presentation. Beyond this, I did not make changes to the actual content of the section; I'll leave that to the legalists. With metta, Emptymountains 14:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem of the changes in the Ordination section are as follows: Geshe Kelsang's Handbook is a primary and unpublished source (only available for NKT monks and nuns) and usually it is not allowed at Wikipedia. However, the reader may have benefit. As far as I can see GKG is claiming things which are not correct, citing them involves discussing them and giving also the correct Vinaya view to it... that's why I tried to find a compromise with the condensation of it which at least include no false facts or cites this as his opinion. His view in a talk from July 1999 by practicing the 10 vows and lamrim the 10 NKT vows turn into Getsul and even Gelong vows and how he is dealing with that topic is more than qustionable.(*) Also a Rabjung is no member of the ordained community and therefor no real Sangha member, he is an aspirant, him is not allowed wearing the yellow upper robe and performing Sojong. Only full monks are full members, Gestuls are members of the order but not full members. Both can perform Sojong, but only Gelongs can perfrom the complete ritual and there must be four Gelongs for performing Sojong. No Getsuls or even Rabjungs can perform Sojong on their own. Also the "basic 5 vows" of NKT are not similar to monks and nuns vows, they are only similar to lay and maybe Rabjung vows (see clarification below). The vows of monks and nuns differ and depend upon their status of ordination. So for instance a Gelong has four root vows, and "not killing" refers to "not killing a human", "not lying" to "a great lie" not any lie or any killing; than a "pure gelong" is referred by Gyaltsab Je to someone keeping the four root vows without defeat and "not intentionally emitting semen", the first remainder. A Gelongma has 6 root vows and "not intentionally emitting semen" is not included in the remainders or root vows... so they can not be compared how it was compared in the article. That's why I removed that section. Many Regards and thank you for your effort. --Kt66 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(*) Here some extracts of his views, I think this is what is referred by you as the "Ordination Handbook"(?), because there he states (and claims) many things, like these:

There are three levels of ordination. The first is an initial or basic ordination. The second level is called the Getsul ordination – Getsulpa and Getsulma in Tibetan, or Shramanera and Shramanerika in Sanskrit, for monks and nuns respectively. The third and highest level of ordination within the Pratimoksa is the Gelong ordination – Gelongpa and Gelongma in Tibetan, or Bhikkshu and Bhikkshuni in Sanskrit, again for monks and nuns respectively.
Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which belongs to the Hinayana tradition. Personally I find this strange. We are Mahayana Buddhists so why are we following the Vinaya – the Pratimoksha vows - of the Hinayana tradition? For example, the Ornament for Clear Realizations (Skt. Abhisamayalamkara) by Maitreya is a commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra written according to the Prasangika view. However, most commentaries written by Tibetan scholars follow the Madhyamika-Svatantrika view. Khedrubje is the only one who has written a commentary to this according to the Prasangika view, and I follow his explanation. Everyone else follows the Svatantrika commentaries, which I find very strange. If the root text is Prasangika why should the commentary be Madhyamika-Svatantrika?
I asked some qualified Teachers about this, including my root guru, Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He told me that in India some of the early Svatantrika Masters were very powerful, both materially and politically, and had many disciples. They exerted a powerful influence on the development of Mahayana Buddhism and many later Masters and their disciples followed the Svantantrika view. Kadampa Buddhist Masters such as Geshe Potowa had a different view concerning ordination; I too follow their interpretation.. Geshe Potowa was a Bhikkshu, a fully ordained monk. His root Guru and Principal Lamrim Teacher was Dromtönpa, a lay Lama. Geshe Potowa would often say that his Ordaining Master was Dromtönpa. Superficially this was incorrect, since according to the Vinaya Sutra ordination vows can only be received from a highly qualified senior Teacher who has been ordained for at least ten years. It may seem that Geshe Potowa is contradicting Buddha’s teaching, but if we think carefully his words are very meaningful.
When I received Lamrim teachings from my Lamas they taught me the meaning of Geshe Potowa’s words and I have contemplated these for a long time. Although he received his initial ordination from a Teacher who was a fully ordained monk, at that time he had no renunciation so his ordained vows were not real Pratimoksha vows. Some years later he met Dromtönpa and received Lamrim teachings, and through putting these teachings into practice he gained the realization of renunciation. Only then did his ordained vows become actual Pratimoksha vows. We can therefore say that Dromtönpa was his Ordaining Master because his actual Pratimoksha vows developed through the kindness of Dromtönpa and his Lamrim teachings. This is a very practical way of understanding how our ordination develops over time.
Perhaps you are like Geshe Potowa? At first when receiving your ordained vows you do not have real renunciation. Your vows are artificial, but later through the practice of Lamrim your artificial renunciation becomes actual renunciation and your vows become real ordained vows. As your renunciation deepens, and your wish to attain nirvana strengthens, your ordained vows transform into Getsul or Shramanera vows, and you become a Getsul or Getsulma. By continuing to improve your renunciation until it becomes spontaneous, your Getsul vows will transform into Gelong vows and you will become a Bhikkshu or Bhikkshuni.
As your renunciation continues to improve you can transform it into bodhichitta. Your Gelong vows will then transform into Bodhisattva vows. As a Bodhisattva you will then have both ordained vows and Bodhisattva vows, but they will not be different, they are the same nature. You can also transform your Tantric vows in this way. This accords with the view of the Kadampa Geshe Potowa and I follow this view.

[edit] Some clarification about the Rabjung ordination and monastic rules

The term 'Rabjung' means 'renunciate' and all ordained are in that way Rabjungs. Only Gestul/Getsulma and Gelong/Gelongma are member of the Buddhist order. Only them are allowed to wear the yellow upper robe (Tib. Chogue). Only four full orained monks (or nuns) can perform the Sojong Ritual. These ordinations and rituals as well as the "Rain Retreats" and "End of Rain Retreats" are not present in the NKT. By this the Vinaya is not present, which indeed is also not taught in NKT.

Than there is a kind of ordination which depends on the ordaining master, and is called also Rabjung. Such a person aims to become a Getsul but takes at first an initial step, by receiving an intermidiate ordination. With this step he is neither a lay person nor a ordained person. He /She is something in-between. This kind of initial step is trationally given for children monks, but sometimes also for Westeners. The ordaining master may give them the five vows including celebacy of a lay follower or the eight vows of the 24hour ordination (including not eating after noon) or even only one or no vow. Such a person is allowed to wear the robe, but not the yellow upper robe. He can not take part in Sojong and him is not allowed to accept offerings which are intended for ordained persons. The difference between a lay person with the five vows includng celebacy and a Rabjung is, that the latter wishes to step into the order of the Buddha by becomeing a Getsul. But the desciples of GKG are discarouged from doing so. The question is than are they than Rabjungs at all? There are some questions open here. An religious scientist told me, the scientific literature does not cover that topic at the moment in a satisfying way, although she is aware of that situation, that the Vinaya in NKT has changed (how it also changed in Japan, when the monks there started to get merried). Many regards, --Kt66 07:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology in ordination section

The NKT ordination is said to consist of (a) five vows and five aspirations and then (b) ten vows. The section then goes on to talk of "the additional five aspirations of the ten vows". Could someone tidy this language up to make it consistent. I haven't as I'm not sure which is most accurate way to proceed. Thanks 82.30.77.133 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the first five promises are vows in the sense that you keep it completely. The last five points are mere aspirations which just state: I will do this, they include not the promise to restrain from bad conduct as the monastic vows in general do. Between an aspiration and keeping vows there is a difference. Maybe ma English is to bad to show the point more clearly. Many Regards, --Kt66 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterhouse references again

Emptymountain notes

there are nine references to three works by "Waterhouse" in this article: notes 44, 62, 96, 112, 119, and 135 refer to Waterhouse 1997, while notes 50 and 101 refer to Waterhouse 1977, and note 144 refers to Waterhouse 2000. However, there are no books or articles by Waterhouse listed in the Reference section. We are not even given Waterhouse's first name!

It would be useful if this could be corrected. I suspect the Waterhouse publication is

Helen Waterhouse, Buddhism in Bath: Authority and Adaptation 1997. ISBN 1 871363 05 5. 251 pp

This reference is listed at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/irpl/crp.htm.

I suspect the "1977" in notes 50 and 101 should be "1997". In her publications list, there is nothing listed for 2000 but three publications in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.77.133 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotes refer to Helen Waterhouse's academical works. Kay, Bluck and others used her as a source for their papers as well. Because many of her works aren't published you have to go to the University Library to read the complete papers or to re-check it. I included her views from the papers of Kay, Bluck, Lopez, Cosort and the like and I put the exact year as they quoted her in the article. I didn't list it as their work, because they quoted her, so the reference is made to her academical researches. If there is a need I can tell you the exact pages in the works of Kay, Bluck and the like where you can find the Waterhouse quotes, including the year. Many Regards, --Kt66 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency re ordination between this article and "Kelsang Gyatso" article

In this article, the NKT ordination is described as a Rabjung-like ordination - as opposed to a Getsul(ma) ordination. By contrast, in the "Kelsang Gyatso" article, Waterhouse is quoted as saying that

the majority of monastics in NKT receive...the...Getsul ordination (novices)...

Clearly, both can't be right so it would be good if someone could correct this inconsistency. And, as in this article, Waterhouse is not properly referenced in the "Kelsang Gytso" article. THanks. --82.30.77.133 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Waterhouse is wrong with her claim, that this is Gestul ordination. This is clearly by common sense and knowledge of what are the vows of monastics. I asked also Inken Prohl by Email. She said there is an evident change in the Monastic Lineage but there is nothing written in academical research until now. So we have the wrong information by Waterhouse regarding the status of ordination and we have no other reliable source for any other / correct statement. This is the actual misery. Regards, --Kt66 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parlimentary Questions

Recently, user 80.2.20.68 added "Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultish behaviour against the organisation" to the introduction. I moved it to the Controversies seciton, but the user moved it back to the introduction saying, "Not all PQs have been answered-also it is part of general overview-intro should not just be positive-it adds to Clarke's comments." I looked up all the PQ numbers given in the reference, and it seems they've all been answered: 147208 & 9 - "The Department considered whether these allegations had any relevance when set against the Fund's stringent criteria and guidelines. The decision was made that the criteria was satisfied and the award of funding was made"; 152364 - "It is up to schools and local authorities to decide upon resources and teaching methods and this would include checking the credentials of any organisation they chose to work with."; 152368 - "The Department has offered no grants to: (a) Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, (b) new Kadampa Tradition and (c) Soka Gakkai International."; 156701 - "Communities and Local Government has received correspondence from a member of the public regarding the alleged cultish behaviour... As far as we are aware, no other representation has been received."; 157746 - "I refer to the earlier answer given on 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 555W."; 157747 - "I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 October 2007, Official Report, column 667W." It is quite clear to me that the allegations of one member of the public have indeed been "answered," no? It does not seem substantial enough to be put in the introduction of this Wiki article. If it is kept at all, it should be moved back to the Controversies section, with some indication of Parliament's response(s). Emptymountains 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Each time you move it there I will move it back-it is relevant at the beginning of the debate!80.2.20.68 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here, maybe you ask a neutral moderator? regards, --Kt66 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do - remove it - clearly it is an irrelevance - the question of an unnamed member of the public (presumably living in the locality of Portsmouth) relating to allegations is hardly going to meet any criteria here is it? best regards Excellentone 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That the UK parliament is dealing with that question is not irrelevant, I think. I removed that information to the Controversy section. There it fits better. Many regards, --Kt66 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to upset or provoke you in any way, but what exactly do you mean by 'dealing with'? I think it is fairly clear that the question was answered, further that the question didn't relate exclusively to the New Kadampa Tradition, and thirdly that it stemmed from one person - I accept that you find that controversial, I would like to argue that it isn't particularly and is actually fairly irrelevant. Excellentone 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No if you have arguments there is no one who can be get upset, I think. Your former argument is not acceptable for me, if a member of the parliament asks different times the NKT-cult question then this is a fact which can be stated I think. A member of the parliament is an elected person and represents therefore not only himself as you claim. If the parliament has answered that question, the answer can be included as well, and that also the FWBO and SGI was questioned can be stated as well. Reading your arguments I can see no real need to delete the sentence completely, but to improve it. As far as I know, for the UK this question is of importance, because it includes other points as well, like if the NKT, FWBO, SGI can teach Buddhism in UK schools. For the moment I have no idea what to do with that subject matter. Maybe another editor has. I included the existence of the New Kadampa Survivors Group. You can see in the Steven Hassan article that this is possible and with more than 190 members you can not say this is irrelevant, I think. Thank you for your thoughts and effort, --Kt66 09:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you well with your survivors group and with your efforts to identify and oppose the minds that cause you suffering. I still think (for the reasons I gave earlier) that the question of whether a single person writing to their Member of Parliament requesting information about grants given to organisations against whom allegations (note, not substantiated necessarily) have been made of engagement in cultish activity is fairly irrelevant to this article. I am of course happy to be disagreed with. -- Excellentone (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course if this is so important that a single member asked that question is a good argument, but on the other hand he is an elected member of the UK parliament and represents more than one person. Also the fact that that issue was raised up in the UK parliament shows people do worry about that. However, I am not sure how relevant that is, so I restrain to re-include it. (BTW, your manipulative and well packed phrase "I wish you well with your survivors group and with your efforts to identify and oppose the minds that cause you suffering." I do not accept, I offer this phrase back to you.) Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NKT Disambiguation Page

I think a disambiguation page may be needed for the NKT abbreviation, as right now it only goes here, as opposed to giving the option to get to Natural Killer T cell. I added a referral at the top of this page, but I don't know how to make a disambiguation page/what guidelines to follow.--corvus.ag 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changes in the ordination section

I reverted the changes of Rnchn; they included unsubstantial claims, like

NKT ordination has three levels - basic ordination, novice (Getsul), and fully-ordained (Gelong).

and others like

According to the Lamrim teachings of Geshe Potowa and others, provisional ordination vows transform into actual basic ordination vows when the practitioner develops actual, rather than fabricated, renunciation.

and no quotes were given.

It is most welcome to improve that section but maybe better to discuss this before, because this section may be the most difficult out of a lack of WP:reliable and secondary sources. Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article regards extremely heavily on Kay. Is needs other sources that support the view of the NKT if it is going to be NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdombuddha (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no other source than Kay that researched NKT history, also Kay's research is reviewed and there is no major criticism by scholars. What other WP:RS or scholarly source do you suggest on the NKT history? Although the article regarding the NKT history is based on the research by Kay - a source highly accepted by scholars - many other parts of the article use other sources (see added list). So only the history part is heavily based on Kay, due to a lack of other researches on NKT history. In some time Inform will publish a flyer on NKT. We can see if this will contradict Kay and how to balance. They started their own research on NKT.

  1. ^ www.kadampa.org [1]
  2. ^ Official Kadampa Website, Kadampa Buddhism at [2]
  3. ^ Clarke, Peter Bernard. New Religions in Global Perspective, page 92, ISBN 0-415-25748-4, Routledge 2006
  4. ^ Kay page 56; The Manjushri Institute charity registration number: 271873, Trust Deed, July 1976, 1
  5. ^ Bluck 2006: 129
  6. ^ a b c d e f David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, pages 55, 56
  7. ^ a b c d e f Modern Day Kadampas - published by the NKT [3]
  8. ^ Kay page 53 and 77
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kay pages 61,62,63,64
 10. ^ "Eradicating wrong views" a letter, dated October 27, 1983, written as a response to the FPMT report "A report on recent events at Manjushri Institute (dated October 1, 1983)
 11. ^ Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 230
 12. ^ a b Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 226
 13. ^ a b Kay, page 63
 14. ^ a b c Kay page 78
 15. ^ Kay 2004 : 66
 16. ^ Kay 2004 : 56
 17. ^ Kay 2004 : 65
 18. ^ Kay page 59
 19. ^ a b c d Kay page 73
 20. ^ Kay page 68
 21. ^ Kay 2004 : 74
 22. ^ Kay 2004 : 75
 23. ^ Kay, page 76
 24. ^ a b c d Kay page 77
 25. ^ Kay page 67
 26. ^ a b c Kay page 76
 27. ^ The New Kadampa Tradition, charity registration number: 2758093, October 1992 designed to study and experience Geshe Kelsang's presentation of Buddhism (see page 233 of Kay's research)
 28. ^ Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 234
 29. ^ Kay page 89
 30. ^ Kay page 74
 31. ^ a b Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 240
 32. ^ NKT brochures before June 2006 and NKT-internet-sites (see [4],[5])
 33. ^ Kay pages 88,89
 34. ^ a b Kay : 2004, p82
 35. ^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.; Geshe Kelsang Gyatso discusses Dorje Shugden as a benevolent protector god, Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3
 36. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [6]
 37. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [7]
 38. ^ Joyful Path of Good Fortune (p. 622)
 39. ^ Gyatso, Kelsang: 2002; Clear Light of Bliss, page 294
 40. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [8], [9]
 41. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [10], 12/02/08
 42. ^ Belither, 1997:7—8, see also Bluck
 43. ^ Kay : 2004, p83
 44. ^ Official NKT website,[11]
 45. ^ BBC (bbc.co.uk), [12]; The New Kadampa Tradition
 46. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 47. ^ a b c d Sect disrobes British monk, World Tibet Network News, Sunday, August 18, 1996, [13]
 48. ^ Sect disrobes British monk, World Tibet Network News, Sunday, August 18, 1996, [14]; see also NKT magazine Full Moon
 49. ^ Long Life Prayer for Gen-la Thubten Gyatso, 1991
 50. ^ Gen-la Kelsang Khyenrab
 51. ^ Gen-la Kelsang Khyenrab | The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT)
 52. ^ a b Kay page 86
 53. ^ Cozort page 232
 54. ^ Books on Buddhism and Meditation, [15]
 55. ^ Kay page 91
 56. ^ Special Spiritual Programs in Kadampa Buddhism, [16]
 57. ^ a b c Introduction to the Foundation Program, a transcript of a talk given by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso on the occasion of the inauguration of the Foundation Program at Tara Centre, October 1990, [17]
 58. ^ Waterhouse 1997: 151
 59. ^ a b Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, page 167, ISBN 81-208-1891-1
 60. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, page 166, ISBN 81-208-1891-1
 61. ^ Kay page 93,94
 62. ^ Full Moon Magazine, Winter 1995, “Wisdom”
 63. ^ Bluck 2006 : 139
 64. ^ Waterhouse 1977 : 166
 65. ^ Kay 2004 : 94
 66. ^ Kay 2004 : 95
 67. ^ Bunting, The Guardian, July 1996, "Shadow Boxing on the Path to Nirvana", [18]
 68. ^ Bunting, Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian, 1998, [19]
 69. ^ Statement by Belither, James 2004 in Bluck 2006 : 139
 70. ^ Statement by Naymgyal 2004 in Bluck 2006 : 139
 71. ^ Bluck, British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development, [20]
 72. ^ Kay page 95
 73. ^ Prasad, 2004
 74. ^ Kay 2004: 85
 75. ^ a b c Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 146, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 76. ^ Published NKT calendars 2000-3
 77. ^ Published NKT calendars 2004-7 and the web calendar at kadampa.org
 78. ^ Geshe Kelsang, Guide to Dakini Land, page 191, 1st and 2nd editions, ISBN: 0948006-40-4
 79. ^ Geshe Kelsang, Guide to Dakini Land, 2005 reprint, page 191, ISBN: 978-0948006-40-1
 80. ^ NKT calendar 2004-7
 81. ^ NKT yearly calendars 2000 onwards
 82. ^ Waterhouse 1997: 174
 83. ^ Bluck Robert, British Buddhism - Teachings, Practice and Development, page 144, RoutledgeCurzon Press, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 84. ^ Geshe Jampa Thekchok, "Monastic Rites", Wisdom Publication, 1995, page 8
 85. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - the Ordination Handbook
 86. ^ a b www.kadampa.org [21]
 87. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006, Bunting:1996, Lopez 1998: 194
 88. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006
 89. ^ Bluck Interview with Belither 2004, see Bluck:2006
 90. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006, Bunting:1996
 91. ^ a b c Bunting, Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian, 1998, [22]
 92. ^ Waterhouse, 1997: 144
 93. ^ Newsweek April 28 1997, see [23]; Ursache und Wirkung, Austria Buddhist Magazine July 2006
 94. ^ a b Bunting, Madeleine: The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996; Ursache und Wirkung, Austria Buddhist Magazine July 2006
 95. ^ Bunting, Madeleine: The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996, Lopez 1998:194, Bluck 2006
 96. ^ a b Lopez 1998:194
 97. ^ The Guardian, London: Saturday 13 July, 1996 (page 10)
 98. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004
 99. ^ Bluck interview with Belither, James 2004
100. ^ Buddhist Temples for World Peace, [24]
101. ^ Hotel Kadampa, "A place of Dreams", [25]
102. ^ Kadampa Meditation Center, [26]
103. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 151, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
104. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 8 Autumn 1993
105. ^ a b c d Kay page 95
106. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 6 Winter 1992
107. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 7 Spring 1993
108. ^ Waterhouse (1997: 143)
109. ^ Bluck, page 151
110. ^ a b Bluck, Robert. British Buddhism, 2006: 149
111. ^ Bluck Robert, (Jenkins, 2004)
112. ^ Bluck Robert, (Kelsang Namgyal, 2004)
113. ^ The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, David Barett p.310
114. ^ Kay pages 38,83; The Guardian, July 6, 1996 [27], Newsweek, April 28, 1997 [28]
115. ^ New Kadampa Survivors, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newkadampasurvivors
116. ^ see CNN interactive, [29]
117. ^ "Two Sides of the Same God", by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998
118. ^ Waterhouse 2000, Oliver Freiberger, Department for the Study of Religion University of Bayreuth, Germany [30], Kay page 213
119. ^ a b Buddhist Magazine "Ursache und Wirkung" No. 56, 2006, Austria
120. ^ von Brück, Michael (1999). Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus, page 159. München: Kösel Verlag. ISBN 3-466-20445-3 and Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La, ISBN 0-226-49310-5, University of Chicago Press, page 195
121. ^ Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling - Our Purpose (Dorje Shugden statement)[31]
122. ^ Biography of Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche by Geshe Jangsem[32]
123. ^ Interview with Trijang Rinpoche by Dario Tesoroni, in 2001[33]
124. ^ A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden by The Dolgyal Research Committee, TGIE, [34]
125. ^ "A Spirit of the XVII Secolo", Raimondo Bultrini, Dzogchen Community published in Mirror, January 2006
126. ^ Open letter from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief, The Washington Times [35]
127. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Summer Festival 2006, Dorje Shugden, [36]
128. ^ a b Bluck 2006 : 148
129. ^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso discusses Dorje Shugden as a benevolent protector god. Spring 1998. Tricycle
130. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 150/151, ISBN 0-415-39515-1

--Kt66 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pre-NKT historical information to the Manjushri Institute page

I'm moving some of the historical information that pre-dates the founding of the NKT to a new Manjushri Institute page to keep this article concise and focused on the NKT itself. Peaceful5 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] According to ....

Has anybody counted the number of times a section starts with "According to ...."? This is not nice --84.167.209.192 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)