Ihere will doubtless be many emanations of holy beings in the NKT, as there are in Tibetan Buddhism, but there's no need for these beings to be formally recognised as their special qualities will doubtless become apparent in time.
I myself have met some of the most revered Lamas in our tradition, recognised as tulkus. They are amazing because of what they have done in their lifetime and are continuing to do, and the tangible benefit they have brought to people in the east and west, and even back in their native "homes" in Bhutan, tibet or wherever. So I do have much respect for the tulku system and I do believe in it.
HOWEVER, having said that, I do also understand what Lineage holder is saying and I have respect for what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has instituted for his organisation. I understand that concerns that are raised within the societies that NKT are in and the merits of developing the qualifications of a teacher here and now. Both ways, I believe, have their own pros and cons, but when you balance it all out, all that really matters is if it is bringing benefit to people and engaging people more and more towards the Dharma. By NKT's success, I say Geshe-la's approach has been beneficial! By the same token, the very basis of the Dharma coming out into the world so widely has also been through the kindness of many Lamas who were long recognised as tulkus, across many generations. The relationship that students had with them may have been out of mere faith, but if you look at it another way, it is that very same faith that has sustained the practices and lineages for hundreds of years, preserving it for us today. So both ways have their merits.
