Response from H.H. the Dalai Lama

[vajratruth]

Now they are saying that the practice of Dorje Shugden destroys the Buddha’s teachings. On the contrary it is clear that the Dharma has spread widely because of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The fastest growing Buddhist centres in the world are those practicing Dorje Shugden. Even in India, the growth of Shar Ganden and the recent opening of Serpom Monastery points to the fact that Dorje Shugden is synonymous to the growth of the Buddha’s teachings and in each of these centers, members go only to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha  for refuge and no one else.  Ironically, FPMT , one of the largest Buddhist centres in the world (that has since been hijacked) was founded by a prolific Shugden practitioner, Lama Yeshe. How can it be said that Dorje Shugden practice opposes the Dharma when the Protector’s prime function is to protect the Dharma and has done so impeccably and evidently.

A little correction here: when Lama Yeshe was alive and when the ban has not started yet, FPMT was the fastest growing Buddhist institution. Centers mushroomed everywhere around the world and in some countries there are even multiple FPMT centers. When Lama Yeshe passed on and when FPMT committees decide that it would be better to be politically correct, the growth of FPMT centers suddenly stopped. Not much new news from them and even their websites are no longer updated. Im not sure if you noticed, but that is what i noticed and it was very glaring.

Thanks Enasapa for highlighting that. In fact it is a very important observation because it means a number of things:

(i) It means that a lot of practitioners around the world actually disagree with the ban and also disagree with policies that persecute others based on belief. People are aware of the Dorje Shugden ban and all those who take their practice seriously would surely investigate the Dalai Lama's reasons and soon discover the reasons to be hollow and dangerously misleading. For the Dalai Lama to go around the world preaching religious tolerance and developing ties with Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities and at the same time disparage an ancient Tibetan Buddhist practice does not make sense to people and they lose trust as the result of such blatant inconsistencies, especially when Tibetan Buddhism places so much emphasis on the consistency of a lineage. By being part of the gang that marginalises others undermined FPMT's own credibility;

(ii) It means that many people, even those with basic Dharma knowledge know that it is wrong to deny people the opportunity to receive the Dharma and to partake in blessings. Everyone knows that the Buddha himself did not discriminate against anyone or being and welcomed all sentient beings to listen to his holy teachings knowing that they can only benefit from the Dharma. Even without having to refer to scripture, one knows that discrimination arises our of anger and hatred and not compassion and so how can anyone who acts out of anger teach the all important practice of compassion. In addition, discriminations shows a lack of wisdom and similarly, how can anyone lacking in wisdom teach that which they have not grasped?

(iii) It shows also that many know for sure that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being and not an evil spirit. How can a past incarnation of a demon write scholarly texts that virtually all monastic schools use in their teaching syllabus? How the the centres lineage Gurus all be wrong? How can one who elucidated the Lamrim perfectly be wrong and also one with attainments so high that he could capture the teachings perfectly and made the entire of the Buddha's teachings available in a condensed form, be wrong? How can these lamas worship the demon and yet spread the Buddha's teachings so perfectly?

(iv) It means and shows clearly that people are smarter than they care to let on and understand fully that Guru Devotion is the root of the path and every true Mahayanist takes that as a core practice. The importance of guru devotion is stressed even in FPMT websites, transcripts of Lama Yeshe's teachings and even that of Lama Zopa. So how can anyone practice in good conscience when they have the picture of the founding Guru everywhere in the Dharma centre and yet ban his Protector implying that the Guru was wrong. If the Guru was wrong, why enroll to study at a centre where the root guru has made such a grievous mistake  as propitiating an evil spirit? Any if the root guru was not wrong, why study under people who do not practice true guru devotion?

(v) And it shows that the spread of Dharma during a degenerate age can only be successful when it has the guidance and support of a Dharma Protector sworn to protect the purity of the teachings. And if guru devotion is missing, it opens the way for the teachings to be tainted. So how can Dorje Shugden support it when that will lead to degeneration of the practice of Dharma. Conversely those centres that stay true to the lineage of the Guru has grown in leaps and bounds as FPMT experienced when it did uphold proper guru devotion.

(vi) It shows how damaging the ban has been to Buddhism overall as it confuses those who are beginning to explore the faith. The confusion puts them off and they see the religion as one based on superstitions and plagued with internal conflict.  They are afraid to offend any Buddha not realizing that a true enlightened being cannot be offended which is why there has been no rebuttal and "counter attacks" by Dorje Shugden, and so they just go away. And this does not only apply to laypeople curious about the Buddha's teachings but also those who have taken monastic oaths and driven away by political demagoguery.

I mean no disrespect to FPMT at all and I feel it is such a shame that they have come to this stage. But I am certain that in time to come the members of the centre themselves will question the policy of its committee. It is such a waste because FPMT was a tremendous launch pad for the Dharma to spread. I hope they will come to correct their error and keep growing.

[Ensapa]

Thanks Enasapa for highlighting that. In fact it is a very important observation because it means a number of things:

(i) It means that a lot of practitioners around the world actually disagree with the ban and also disagree with policies that persecute others based on belief. People are aware of the Dorje Shugden ban and all those who take their practice seriously would surely investigate the Dalai Lama's reasons and soon discover the reasons to be hollow and dangerously misleading. For the Dalai Lama to go around the world preaching religious tolerance and developing ties with Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities and at the same time disparage an ancient Tibetan Buddhist practice does not make sense to people and they lose trust as the result of such blatant inconsistencies, especially when Tibetan Buddhism places so much emphasis on the consistency of a lineage. By being part of the gang that marginalises others undermined FPMT's own credibility;

(ii) It means that many people, even those with basic Dharma knowledge know that it is wrong to deny people the opportunity to receive the Dharma and to partake in blessings. Everyone knows that the Buddha himself did not discriminate against anyone or being and welcomed all sentient beings to listen to his holy teachings knowing that they can only benefit from the Dharma. Even without having to refer to scripture, one knows that discrimination arises our of anger and hatred and not compassion and so how can anyone who acts out of anger teach the all important practice of compassion. In addition, discriminations shows a lack of wisdom and similarly, how can anyone lacking in wisdom teach that which they have not grasped?

(iii) It shows also that many know for sure that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being and not an evil spirit. How can a past incarnation of a demon write scholarly texts that virtually all monastic schools use in their teaching syllabus? How the the centres lineage Gurus all be wrong? How can one who elucidated the Lamrim perfectly be wrong and also one with attainments so high that he could capture the teachings perfectly and made the entire of the Buddha's teachings available in a condensed form, be wrong? How can these lamas worship the demon and yet spread the Buddha's teachings so perfectly?

(iv) It means and shows clearly that people are smarter than they care to let on and understand fully that Guru Devotion is the root of the path and every true Mahayanist takes that as a core practice. The importance of guru devotion is stressed even in FPMT websites, transcripts of Lama Yeshe's teachings and even that of Lama Zopa. So how can anyone practice in good conscience when they have the picture of the founding Guru everywhere in the Dharma centre and yet ban his Protector implying that the Guru was wrong. If the Guru was wrong, why enroll to study at a centre where the root guru has made such a grievous mistake  as propitiating an evil spirit? Any if the root guru was not wrong, why study under people who do not practice true guru devotion?

(v) And it shows that the spread of Dharma during a degenerate age can only be successful when it has the guidance and support of a Dharma Protector sworn to protect the purity of the teachings. And if guru devotion is missing, it opens the way for the teachings to be tainted. So how can Dorje Shugden support it when that will lead to degeneration of the practice of Dharma. Conversely those centres that stay true to the lineage of the Guru has grown in leaps and bounds as FPMT experienced when it did uphold proper guru devotion.

(vi) It shows how damaging the ban has been to Buddhism overall as it confuses those who are beginning to explore the faith. The confusion puts them off and they see the religion as one based on superstitions and plagued with internal conflict.  They are afraid to offend any Buddha not realizing that a true enlightened being cannot be offended which is why there has been no rebuttal and "counter attacks" by Dorje Shugden, and so they just go away. And this does not only apply to laypeople curious about the Buddha's teachings but also those who have taken monastic oaths and driven away by political demagoguery.

I mean no disrespect to FPMT at all and I feel it is such a shame that they have come to this stage. But I am certain that in time to come the members of the centre themselves will question the policy of its committee. It is such a waste because FPMT was a tremendous launch pad for the Dharma to spread. I hope they will come to correct their error and keep growing.

Thanks for all your points. It is very clear to me on how the ban has damaged FPMT as a whole, and also Lama Osel (till he does not want to manifest as a Lama) and the thousands, if not, millions of Lama Yeshe's disciples who were suddenly forced to stop their Dorje Shugden practice, or were kicked out their Dharma centers because of the ban (or rather how people went around it, in the most unbuddhistic way possible). If it can damage FPMT to this extent, i can only imagine how much damage it has cost the Tibetan Buddhist world over the decades that it has been imposed. I really hope that the ban would be lifted so that everyone can heal from this episode.

[Big Uncle]

Now they are saying that the practice of Dorje Shugden destroys the Buddha’s teachings. On the contrary it is clear that the Dharma has spread widely because of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The fastest growing Buddhist centres in the world are those practicing Dorje Shugden. Even in India, the growth of Shar Ganden and the recent opening of Serpom Monastery points to the fact that Dorje Shugden is synonymous to the growth of the Buddha’s teachings and in each of these centers, members go only to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha  for refuge and no one else.  Ironically, FPMT , one of the largest Buddhist centres in the world (that has since been hijacked) was founded by a prolific Shugden practitioner, Lama Yeshe. How can it be said that Dorje Shugden practice opposes the Dharma when the Protector’s prime function is to protect the Dharma and has done so impeccably and evidently.

A little correction here: when Lama Yeshe was alive and when the ban has not started yet, FPMT was the fastest growing Buddhist institution. Centers mushroomed everywhere around the world and in some countries there are even multiple FPMT centers. When Lama Yeshe passed on and when FPMT committees decide that it would be better to be politically correct, the growth of FPMT centers suddenly stopped. Not much new news from them and even their websites are no longer updated. Im not sure if you noticed, but that is what i noticed and it was very glaring.

Someone told me that Lama Yeshe requested Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to invite Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to head the Manjushri center in England. However, there were some disagreements between both Lamas and eventually, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and FPMT parted ways. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's students requested Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to remain and teach. Geshe Kelsang's organisation eventually became the large New Kadampa Tradition that relies on Dorje Shugden as their principle protector.

Here's what I found of the checkered history of Manjushri Institute:-

Manjushri Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manjushri Institute was a large Buddhist college situated at Conishead Priory in England from 1976 until its dissolution in 1991. In 1991 its assets, including Conishead Priory, were transferred to a new centre, Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre, which was later renamed Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre.

Founding

In 1976 the students of Lama Thubten Yeshe founded the Manjushri Institute, a registered charitable company with Lama Yeshe as the spiritual director and purchased the assets of Conishead Priory, a neglected Victorian mansion in Ulverston (Cumbria), England for the price of £70,000. In the same year Lama Thubten Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche visited Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in India and invited him to teach at the Manjushri Institute, which was a part of their FPMT network. According to David Kay, they sought the advice of the 14th Dalai Lama when choosing Geshe Kelsang. At first Geshe Kelsang appears to have been reluctant to accept this invitation, but "Lama Yeshe requested Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche [Geshe Kelsang's Teacher] to ask Geshe Kelsang to become Resident Teacher of Manjushri Institute. Geshe Kelsang later recounted that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche asked him to go to England, teach Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle Way and Lamrim, and then check whether there was any meaning in his continuing to stay."

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, monk and scholar from the Gelug Tradition, is a contemporary of Lama Yeshe's from the time they spent studying at Sera Monastery.

Geshe Kelsang was requested by Lama Yeshe to lead the "General Program" of Buddhist study. In 1979 Lama Yeshe installed another Geshe at Manjushri Institute, Geshe Jampa Tekchok, to teach a parallel twelve-year Geshe Studies Programme, which was recognized and validated by the Dalai Lama and which was modeled on the traditional Geshe degree. From 1982 to 1990 this program was led by Geshe Konchog Tsewang. According to a disciple of Lama Yeshe from this time, Lama Yeshe intended the institute "to become the central monastery of the FPMT... one of the early jewels of the FPMT crown" and "the pioneer among the western centers".

Separation from the FPMT

In the late 1970s, Geshe Kelsang received a request to give a teaching in York, at which he met Ron Lister. Ron later invited Geshe Kelsang to stay with him in York, since the winters in the drafty Conishead Priory were difficult for Geshe Kelsang's health. While in York, Geshe Kelsang was requested repeatedly to teach. Acting in accordance with his Bodhisattva vow not to withhold teachings from those who request them, he offered a number of teachings there. Eventually this led to a new Buddhist Centre, Madhyamaka Centre, being established in York under Geshe Kelsang's guidance. Kay sees this as the beginning of a conflict between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang. However, according to Geshe Kelsang, "the opening of the Centre in York caused not one moment of confusion or disharmony". Geshe Kelsang was asked to resign so that another Geshe, described by Kay as "more devoted to FPMT objectives", could take over as a resident teacher of Manjushri Institute.[6] Many students of Geshe Kelsang petitioned him to stay and teach them, and on this basis he decided to remain. As Geshe Kelsang said in Santa Barbara USA, February 2, 1996:

"Soon after I arrived I started to teach Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, which took almost one year. Then I gave extensive Lamrim teachings, and after that I taught Guide to the Middle Way. So altogether it took almost three years to complete my commitment and I was very happy to return to India. My root Guru Trijang Rinpoche was there and he was very old; my mother and my many spiritual friends were there. Lama Yeshe also accepted my returning to India, so I nearly returned to India. But then the Manjushri Institute community people strongly requested me to stay."

In the following years prior to 1990 Geshe Kelsang established 15 centres under his own direction in Great Britain and Spain.

The management committee of Manjushri Institute, also known as "the Priory Group", were deeply appreciative of Geshe Kelsang's teachings and example and were some of his closest students. According to Kay, "The Priory Group became dissatisfied with the FPMT's increasingly centralized organisation" and some of the FPMT's policies "were considered to be particularly unreasonable strains which threatened the Institute's existence." Moreover, some of Lama Yeshe's students were alleged to be engaging in illegal activities, which would cause embarrassment to Lama Yeshe and to the FPMT. Cozort states that different disagreements "led to a rift between Lama Yeshe and his students and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his, and eventually the Manjushri Board of directors (composed of Geshe Kelsang's students) severed the connection between the institute and the FPMT." According to Kay, Lama Yeshe tried at different times to reassert his authority over the Institute, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Kay goes on to describe an open conflict of authority which developed between the Priory Group and the FPMT administration in 1983. In February 1984 the conflict was mediated by the Office of the Dalai Lama in London. Kay states that after the death of Lama Yeshe in March 1984, the FPMT lost interest because they saw it as a fruitless case. Since that time, Kay states, the Manjushri Institute has developed mainly under the guidance of Geshe Kelsang without further reference to the FPMT, but legally remained part of the FPMT until late 1990.

A detailed history of early Manjushri Institute and the its relationship to the FPMT and the NKT is given by three reliable witnesses who were involved in the proceedings. They explain:

The community of Manjushri Institute wished to save their building, Conishead Priory, from being sold to make funds available for suspect business dealings in Hong Kong.(thisneeds to be clarified as it is just an allegation). This meant they needed to separate from the FPMT. On the other hand, they wished Lama Yeshe to stay as their Spiritual Director. After continual discussions on how to solve the problem, also involving two representatives from the Dalai Lama, the Institute’s managers – then called the ‘Priory Group’ – decided to take steps to separate Manjushri Institute from FPMT.

There were three main reasons for doing this:

1) FPMT managers had committed serious illegal actions, which was public knowledge among many people at Dharma centres;(this needs to be clarified, as it is just an allegation as it stands)

2) FPMT managers wanted to sell Manjushri Institute’s building; and

3) Although, according to its constitution, legally everything at the centre belonged only to four people, in reality all the work of developing the centre was being done by the community, and not these four.

Eventually, a legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives. One part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre.

Establishment of the NKT-IKBU

Geshe Kelsang made a 3-year retreat from 1987–1990 in Dumfries, Scotland and asked Geshe Losang Pende from Ganden Shartse monastery to lead the General Programme in his absence, whilst Geshe Konchog Tsewang continued to teach the Geshe Studies Programme at Conishead Priory (Manjushri Institute). Different Lamas, including Lama Zopa Rinpoche, were still invited. Especially the visit of Lama Zopa Rinpoche in 1988 "is significant, indicating the ongoing devotion of the students to this lama and their desire to leave the negativity of the schism with the FPMT in the past." In 1988 and 1990 the uncle of Geshe Kelsang, Ven. Choyang Duldzin Kuten Lama - the oracle of Dorje Shugden - also visited Manjushri Institute. Before that time Song Rinpoche, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Geshe Rabten, as well as other lamas such as Ajahn Sumedho and Thich Nhat Hanh have taught at Manjushri Institute.

During Geshe Kelsang's period of retreat he wrote five books and established the foundations of the New Kadampa Tradition. Kay states: "The first major development that took place during Geshe Kelsang's retreat was the introduction of the 'Teacher Training Programme' (TTP) at the Manjushri Institute."

In 1990 the Geshe Studies Programme at Manjushri Institute was cancelled, as it had been in most of the other FPMT Centres where it had been established. According to Cozort, "No one, to my knowledge, ever completed the FPMT Geshe Studies Programme. The program never ran its full course in any of the Centres where it was taught."

In 1991, Manjushri Institute was dissolved and its assets turned over to a new corporation, Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre, located on the same premises at Conishead Priory. The Centre was later renamed Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre, which is still active as the "Mother Centre" of the NKT-IKBU.

[Ensapa]

Now they are saying that the practice of Dorje Shugden destroys the Buddha’s teachings. On the contrary it is clear that the Dharma has spread widely because of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The fastest growing Buddhist centres in the world are those practicing Dorje Shugden. Even in India, the growth of Shar Ganden and the recent opening of Serpom Monastery points to the fact that Dorje Shugden is synonymous to the growth of the Buddha’s teachings and in each of these centers, members go only to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha  for refuge and no one else.  Ironically, FPMT , one of the largest Buddhist centres in the world (that has since been hijacked) was founded by a prolific Shugden practitioner, Lama Yeshe. How can it be said that Dorje Shugden practice opposes the Dharma when the Protector’s prime function is to protect the Dharma and has done so impeccably and evidently.

A little correction here: when Lama Yeshe was alive and when the ban has not started yet, FPMT was the fastest growing Buddhist institution. Centers mushroomed everywhere around the world and in some countries there are even multiple FPMT centers. When Lama Yeshe passed on and when FPMT committees decide that it would be better to be politically correct, the growth of FPMT centers suddenly stopped. Not much new news from them and even their websites are no longer updated. Im not sure if you noticed, but that is what i noticed and it was very glaring.

Someone told me that Lama Yeshe requested Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to invite Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to head the Manjushri center in England. However, there were some disagreements between both Lamas and eventually, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and FPMT parted ways. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's students requested Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to remain and teach. Geshe Kelsang's organisation eventually became the large New Kadampa Tradition that relies on Dorje Shugden as their principle protector.

Here's what I found of the checkered history of Manjushri Institute:-

Manjushri Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manjushri Institute was a large Buddhist college situated at Conishead Priory in England from 1976 until its dissolution in 1991. In 1991 its assets, including Conishead Priory, were transferred to a new centre, Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre, which was later renamed Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre.

Founding

In 1976 the students of Lama Thubten Yeshe founded the Manjushri Institute, a registered charitable company with Lama Yeshe as the spiritual director and purchased the assets of Conishead Priory, a neglected Victorian mansion in Ulverston (Cumbria), England for the price of £70,000. In the same year Lama Thubten Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche visited Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in India and invited him to teach at the Manjushri Institute, which was a part of their FPMT network. According to David Kay, they sought the advice of the 14th Dalai Lama when choosing Geshe Kelsang. At first Geshe Kelsang appears to have been reluctant to accept this invitation, but "Lama Yeshe requested Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche [Geshe Kelsang's Teacher] to ask Geshe Kelsang to become Resident Teacher of Manjushri Institute. Geshe Kelsang later recounted that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche asked him to go to England, teach Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle Way and Lamrim, and then check whether there was any meaning in his continuing to stay."

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, monk and scholar from the Gelug Tradition, is a contemporary of Lama Yeshe's from the time they spent studying at Sera Monastery.

Geshe Kelsang was requested by Lama Yeshe to lead the "General Program" of Buddhist study. In 1979 Lama Yeshe installed another Geshe at Manjushri Institute, Geshe Jampa Tekchok, to teach a parallel twelve-year Geshe Studies Programme, which was recognized and validated by the Dalai Lama and which was modeled on the traditional Geshe degree. From 1982 to 1990 this program was led by Geshe Konchog Tsewang. According to a disciple of Lama Yeshe from this time, Lama Yeshe intended the institute "to become the central monastery of the FPMT... one of the early jewels of the FPMT crown" and "the pioneer among the western centers".

Separation from the FPMT

In the late 1970s, Geshe Kelsang received a request to give a teaching in York, at which he met Ron Lister. Ron later invited Geshe Kelsang to stay with him in York, since the winters in the drafty Conishead Priory were difficult for Geshe Kelsang's health. While in York, Geshe Kelsang was requested repeatedly to teach. Acting in accordance with his Bodhisattva vow not to withhold teachings from those who request them, he offered a number of teachings there. Eventually this led to a new Buddhist Centre, Madhyamaka Centre, being established in York under Geshe Kelsang's guidance. Kay sees this as the beginning of a conflict between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang. However, according to Geshe Kelsang, "the opening of the Centre in York caused not one moment of confusion or disharmony". Geshe Kelsang was asked to resign so that another Geshe, described by Kay as "more devoted to FPMT objectives", could take over as a resident teacher of Manjushri Institute.[6] Many students of Geshe Kelsang petitioned him to stay and teach them, and on this basis he decided to remain. As Geshe Kelsang said in Santa Barbara USA, February 2, 1996:

"Soon after I arrived I started to teach Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, which took almost one year. Then I gave extensive Lamrim teachings, and after that I taught Guide to the Middle Way. So altogether it took almost three years to complete my commitment and I was very happy to return to India. My root Guru Trijang Rinpoche was there and he was very old; my mother and my many spiritual friends were there. Lama Yeshe also accepted my returning to India, so I nearly returned to India. But then the Manjushri Institute community people strongly requested me to stay."

In the following years prior to 1990 Geshe Kelsang established 15 centres under his own direction in Great Britain and Spain.

The management committee of Manjushri Institute, also known as "the Priory Group", were deeply appreciative of Geshe Kelsang's teachings and example and were some of his closest students. According to Kay, "The Priory Group became dissatisfied with the FPMT's increasingly centralized organisation" and some of the FPMT's policies "were considered to be particularly unreasonable strains which threatened the Institute's existence." Moreover, some of Lama Yeshe's students were alleged to be engaging in illegal activities, which would cause embarrassment to Lama Yeshe and to the FPMT. Cozort states that different disagreements "led to a rift between Lama Yeshe and his students and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his, and eventually the Manjushri Board of directors (composed of Geshe Kelsang's students) severed the connection between the institute and the FPMT." According to Kay, Lama Yeshe tried at different times to reassert his authority over the Institute, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Kay goes on to describe an open conflict of authority which developed between the Priory Group and the FPMT administration in 1983. In February 1984 the conflict was mediated by the Office of the Dalai Lama in London. Kay states that after the death of Lama Yeshe in March 1984, the FPMT lost interest because they saw it as a fruitless case. Since that time, Kay states, the Manjushri Institute has developed mainly under the guidance of Geshe Kelsang without further reference to the FPMT, but legally remained part of the FPMT until late 1990.

A detailed history of early Manjushri Institute and the its relationship to the FPMT and the NKT is given by three reliable witnesses who were involved in the proceedings. They explain:

The community of Manjushri Institute wished to save their building, Conishead Priory, from being sold to make funds available for suspect business dealings in Hong Kong.(thisneeds to be clarified as it is just an allegation). This meant they needed to separate from the FPMT. On the other hand, they wished Lama Yeshe to stay as their Spiritual Director. After continual discussions on how to solve the problem, also involving two representatives from the Dalai Lama, the Institute’s managers – then called the ‘Priory Group’ – decided to take steps to separate Manjushri Institute from FPMT.

There were three main reasons for doing this:

1) FPMT managers had committed serious illegal actions, which was public knowledge among many people at Dharma centres;(this needs to be clarified, as it is just an allegation as it stands)

2) FPMT managers wanted to sell Manjushri Institute’s building; and

3) Although, according to its constitution, legally everything at the centre belonged only to four people, in reality all the work of developing the centre was being done by the community, and not these four.

Eventually, a legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives. One part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre.

Establishment of the NKT-IKBU

Geshe Kelsang made a 3-year retreat from 1987–1990 in Dumfries, Scotland and asked Geshe Losang Pende from Ganden Shartse monastery to lead the General Programme in his absence, whilst Geshe Konchog Tsewang continued to teach the Geshe Studies Programme at Conishead Priory (Manjushri Institute). Different Lamas, including Lama Zopa Rinpoche, were still invited. Especially the visit of Lama Zopa Rinpoche in 1988 "is significant, indicating the ongoing devotion of the students to this lama and their desire to leave the negativity of the schism with the FPMT in the past." In 1988 and 1990 the uncle of Geshe Kelsang, Ven. Choyang Duldzin Kuten Lama - the oracle of Dorje Shugden - also visited Manjushri Institute. Before that time Song Rinpoche, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Geshe Rabten, as well as other lamas such as Ajahn Sumedho and Thich Nhat Hanh have taught at Manjushri Institute.

During Geshe Kelsang's period of retreat he wrote five books and established the foundations of the New Kadampa Tradition. Kay states: "The first major development that took place during Geshe Kelsang's retreat was the introduction of the 'Teacher Training Programme' (TTP) at the Manjushri Institute."

In 1990 the Geshe Studies Programme at Manjushri Institute was cancelled, as it had been in most of the other FPMT Centres where it had been established. According to Cozort, "No one, to my knowledge, ever completed the FPMT Geshe Studies Programme. The program never ran its full course in any of the Centres where it was taught."

In 1991, Manjushri Institute was dissolved and its assets turned over to a new corporation, Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre, located on the same premises at Conishead Priory. The Centre was later renamed Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre, which is still active as the "Mother Centre" of the NKT-IKBU.

Although one would agree that such political news is sad to hear, i would like to see the silver lining in the cloud: NKT was a result of these disagreements and so forth and it is now one of the world's largest Buddhist center. So I would say that although the causes and conditions seemed very bad, it resulted in something good at the end of the day. Perhaps this is also another divine play between Lama Yeshe, Lama Zopa and Geshe Keslang Gyatso as they have never bad mouthed each other over the years. (the students is of course, a different story.)