[Buddha-l] Jhanas in Mahayana & Tibetan

[Carol McQuire]

Hi Federico,

 

Your original post referred to 'taking one part' from Buddhism and

'creating a school'.

 

In effect, this is what Kelsang Gyatso has done - he has his own

'school' - the New Kadampa Tradition with his own ordination, his

own practices, his own music and methods. These are radically 

different from the manner in which every other Tibetan group

is run, including the FPMT, even without mentioning the 'demonstrations' 

against the Dalai Lama, calling him a 'hypocrite, not a Buddhist, etc...'.

Every senior teacher of the NKT was in those world wide demonstrations

and this is highly divisive and separatist behaviour for any Buddhist group. 

 

So in what way is the NKT not a 'brand new tradition'? You may

refer to the texts, which are 'translations of original texts' but

in effect are just commmentaries by Kelsang Gyatso with a high

degree of repetition amongst them. No other texts, even the sutras,

can be studied by NKT teachers. I would suggest that this is the

'one part' that has been taken from Tibetan Buddhism but that this

has been transformed in the last decade into something else. 

 

The ordination robes look 'traditional' but the ordination isn't. 

There is no support for ordained sangha and there is no personal 

spiritual direction from Kelsang Gyatso as would be customary 

elsewhere.

 

Even the NKT themselves pertain to be a 'new tradition'!

 

Kelsang Gyatso might be 'recognised' in person as a 'Geshe' although

he has been expelled from Sera Je monastery, but in practice no other

Tibetan group (apart from the two Shugden centres in Europe and US and

the Chinese supported Shugden affiliates) accepts his initiations and ordination

as fully valid. 

 

I would propose that the New Kadampa Tradition began as a 'splinter group'

but in practice has become aligned with the 'East Asian' model of

total independence from other groups. However, in British society

they have promoted themselves as ultra-orthodox, and as in general,

the British public is fairly ill informed about Buddhism, there is nothing

to which it can be easily compared. I would note that there are no

ethnographic studies of the NKT. David Kay's book is based on

interviews with persons chosen by the NKT, not by field research

within a centre. 

 

What would be your criteria for 'recogition' by other groups? At what

point does a 'splinter' not become it's own 'school' if the original sources,

systems and values are radically changed?

 

You say Kelsang Gyatso 'was' a 'highly regarded Geshe'. If, as seems,

he is no longer so, then what do we call what the NKT has become?

A 'splinter group' which became it's own 'tradition', having gone down

a cul-de-sac? I take your point about the 'original' validation of

Kelsang Gyatso, but perhaps we need to categorise these groups 

differently. 

 

Carol
 
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:19:24 -0300
> From: dingirfecho at gmail.com
> To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Jhanas in Mahayana & Tibetan
> 
> >
> >
> > >How about the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT)?
> >
> >
> >
> > >Carol McQuire
> >
> >
> Actually, not the same thing. Kelsang Gyatso was a highly regarded Geshe in
> an established tradition prior his branching off. What we´re discussing is
> the creation of a brand new tradition by someone who`s not recognized by any
> other tradition, not splinter groups.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Federico
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l