Dear Sulmaya,

You are as entitled to your opinions as anybody else.
My opinion is that Trungpa, along with an awful lot of his fellows, talked a good game but his behaviour, that which has most impact on his trusting followers, was nothing to write home about.

I've also heard that his books were ghostwritten, gossip, sure, but then I like to hear the gossip, not aiming for perfection myself.

Just a thought, how do you define wisdom---fine words on the page or real world consequences in real time?

We are concerned here at the Cult Education Forum with closely examining these wise guys with clay feet, not bigging them up.

A guide book written by someone who clearly did not follow the guidelines himself---I find that dubious.

Were I tackling Everest for the first time, I would want as a guide someone with more than a passing knowledge of the terrain and its dangers, I would want someone who had made it up the mountain already and more importantly--come down again in one piece.
I would classify that guide as having some wisdom about the climbing and subsequent safe descent of Everest--I would not expect his wisdom to 'mission-creep' by a process of osmosis so that I considered it also wise to consult him on filling in my tax returns.

Trungpa was wise in the ways of boozing, women and power-tripping, including giving the alarming advice to his successor that the successor, though HIV positive, need not bother with condoms since he was a TB demi-god and could fornicate happily with both sexes--which he did--infecting a number of his followers before dying himself from AIDs.

That kind of wisdom you can take to the bank---it sure doesn't help much in real life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2011 01:13AM by Stoic.

Yep, Its that old authoritarian staple again, do as I say, not as I do.

Ensures that the lower orders know and keep to their lowly ignorant places, all done by smoke and mirrors, and the absurd notion that Tibetan Buddhist 'demi-gods', by virtue of their ancient magic ways, get a pass on the consequences of their actions in this life.

Dear Stoic,

These things may all be true. But they have absolutely nothing to do with my point, which still stands. Furthermore this blog was originally about Geshe Kelsang and the New Kadampa Tradition, not Trungpa... :-)

Peace

You introduced Trungpa as an exemplar of wisdom, I have pointed out that he has not displayed any, in fact he has dispensed ludicrous advice that proved stupid to his successor and lethal to his students.

I am afraid that as yet you have not made your point clear.

Why are you here on the Geshe Kelsang and the New Kadampa Tradition thread?

Quote
Stoic
Why are you here on the Geshe Kelsang and the New Kadampa Tradition thread?

Good point. It would be good to stick to the topic and not to distract from in be it accidental or consciously.

Quote
Sulmaya
Furthermore this blog was originally about Geshe Kelsang and the New Kadampa Tradition, not Trungpa... :-)

As you can see, that was my point as well. Stoic, I came on to this blog to give my own account, having had close association with NKT and seen different aspects thereof. You will see my account on the last page or two. In conjunction with my view, I mentioned the issue of 'spiritual materialism', at which point Trungpa was briefly mentioned as a side note (it was you who continued writing about him).

Much peace.x

I think I made a fault. I checked only on a surfaced level the last comments and I was wondering what their value are with respect to the topic. But now after having glanced through it, I think they have some interesting points. The issue of spiritual materialism and also Chögyam Trungpa seem to fit well into a discussion of NKT too. So I do apologize for my previous comment because it was based on my misunderstanding on what is going on at this forum and a suspicion a NKT follower might twist the discussion but this doesn't seem to be the case.

The list of cons Sulmaya gave at this forum previously is quite interesting to me, I couldn't see it that way, and actual they sound really a bit like "NKT propaganda" to me. I feel them to be based on a lack of having studied qualified outside of NKT and under qualified and leaned teachers.

To give some examples among the cons Sumaya sees in NKT are:

"Thoroughly inspiring and clear, giving you the full scope of Dharma from A to Z. Very open, very practical and very profound. Linguistically, they surpass most other authors on Buddhism I have come across"

If this is Dharma from A to Z please show me where and how KG explains the Vinaya or what you do if you recognize that your teacher is not really qualified? Where does he say when and how a monk has lost his or her ordination, what vows can be purified and what vows cannot be purified? If you drink alcohol as a monk or nun, have you lost ordination, if you killed a mosquito, did you lost your ordination, if you lied about something have you lost your ordination? I can tell you there quite a lot of important Dharmas utter absent in the NKT. I could not really refer to it as Dharma from A to Z. Even his explanation of faith is weird and unclear and "faith" forms a basis principle of the NKT cosmos. (for details see: [www.amazon.com] see especially the comment section where I put quotes to explain what faith is all about.)

"- Great education programme and teachers, providing something for everybody, from
basic breathing meditation to mantra workshops to Highest Yoga Tantra teachings. All very practical, down to earth and positive. The style of Buddhism is very well balanced and close in spirit to the Atisha – Je Tsongkhapa."


How can you make such a claim based on proper discriminating awareness, did you follow other qualified Dharma study programs, and did you read the works of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa to be able to see that they are "close in spirit to the Atisha – Je Tsongkhapa."? I assume not or only on a surfaced basis. I have done now more studies outside of NKT than in NKT (and I was a diligent student in NKT) and based on my basis of knowledge—which is utter limited compared with a Geshe or Rinpoche knowledge but not with respect to NKT presentation of teachings—this belief explained above is not concordant with the facts but thin air, a propaganda tale of the NKT which everybody absorbs who follows NKT for a while, and which can be corrected only if one truly studies outside of NKT.


"- The greatest emphasis in all their books, teachings, festivals, etc is universal compassion.
Nothing is ever done without it."

That everything is done with compassion is a claim, a mere claim. I doubt this statement, there is a lot of talk about compassion but not necessarily "nothing is ever done without it" if this were true than also the covered sexual abuse within NKT is done with compassion. Very interesting.

"- They are independent from the Dalai Lama and other Gelug groups; this is a positive thing. The tradition thus has remained clear, focused and been able to flourish in the direction it has always been aiming."

Nothing is really independent, also not the NKT, even the robes depend on Tibetan Buddhism and KG's Geshe title. Independence and isolating oneself are different issues. Though you referred to another type of independence, if it were good to have isolated from the wider Sangha than also Devadattas actions to become independent from Buddha and his students was a good action? NKT has isolated from their root, the Gelug school. This needn't be a good thing.

"- The organization is humble and democratic. There is no profit being made resulting in a select few members getting fat and wealthy, and all centres function as independent communities, with all their members having a say and a voice in what happens and the changes that take place."

The decison maker is KG and nobody else there is only pseudo democracy on the paper in NKT but I lack time to explain in detail why this is so and what my reasons are to say it. I think after 12 years of having followed NKT (as you Sulmaya did and what has my respect!), it needs a lot of time to work through all those things one has learned there and to truly verify and re-evaluate it.

I wish you all the best for your journey Sulmaya!
Tenzin



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2011 09:20PM by Tenzin Peljor.

Dear Tenzin
Thank you very much for your time in replying. You raise many interesting points and questions. I think you meant my ‘Pros’ not my ‘cons’ though ;-) Perhaps I can shed some light on my list of pros, but of course, as you point out, they remain only opinions of mine.

Your first point is interesting, because you are right: The term ‘Vinaya’ is basically not used in the books. I have found it to be quite common in most Mahayana/Vajrayana literature, that original Pali sources are not mentioned or explained fully. So partially, I accept your counter argument.
By ‘A-Z’ I was mostly referring to the fact that there is an entire practice that one can follow, which for all practical intents and purposes, includes lots of the Vinaya; Books like ‘Meaningful to Behold’, ‘Joyful Path’ or ‘Bodhisattva Vows’ for example, all touch on most of the teachings of the Vinaya branch. As for specifics as to what actions break ordination vows and what actions do not, I cannot reply. Possibly this hasn’t come to my attention, since it is a subject that doesn’t interest me too much. I am more interested in the actual philosophy and practice. So there too, you may be right. However, there is plenty of text concerning breaking vows, restoring vows, etc in many of the books.

I haven’t read many seminal texts by Tsongkhapa, and all texts I have read from him, Atisha, Shantideva etc have been translations in English or German. What I mean by ‘the teachings are in the spirit of Tsongkhapa’ is that the teachings are presented in the same mode of balance as they were presented by Tsongkhapa: Universal compassion as a starting point, Lamrim as a basis, Lojong as a continuation and Vajrayana as the completion. The very logical form of debate and questioning, as well as the simple approach to meditation are all aspects I have found in all literature coming from these masters. I think G.K. has presented this very well, fully and clearly. That is of course, only my opinion.

That everything is done from compassion is indeed a mere claim by me, you are right. I can only really back that up by comparing it to other tradition’s practices. In some cases, these other practices may engage in Mahamudra meditation, mantra meditation or something else, without properly developing renunciation, going for refuge and, developing or generating compassion/love. At least ‘on paper’, all the sadhana practices within NKT begin this way and, when guided, the meditation sessions seem to place a lot of importance on this.

I agree with your last points, nothing is independent. But I find it a negative thing, rather than a positive one, that many Gelug schools are by default (and without appeal) attached in some way to HH DL, and therefore to the whole political cause for Tibet. I very strongly believe that religion should be as far removed from politics as is humanly possible. In line with this, I believe that GK has done some brave and positive things for the benefit of many Buddhist who have been shunned by HH DL’s views.

There is a lot of pseudo democracy within the NKT. But no more than in any other organization I have ever seen, religious or non-religious. It seems to be human nature. Much has been changed within NKTs internal rules, as well as in their general behavior and presentation based on criticism and advice given by others. This indicates that perhaps they are not a totalitarian authority.

I hope this maybe sheds a little light on the points. I would be interested to hear if you agree or disagree with any of the ‘cons’ in my previous list?


Best Wishes to you too! Peace.