Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's credentials in question

[hope rainbow]

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s credentials

A few facts:
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s root guru is Trijang Rinpoche.
Trijang Rinpoche’s guru is Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Pabongkha Rinpoche’s guru is Dagpo Rinpoche.
etc...
(see on biographies –this web-site- for more info on these lamas, or refer to other topics of this forum with mention of these great masters).
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was ordained at the age of 8.
Geshe Kelsang studied for 15 years at Sera Monastery where he successfully completed the full Geshe studies of five large philosophical texts.
After leaving Tibet, he spent eighteen years in retreat in the Himalayas in India.
In 1976 he was invited by Lama Thubten Yeshe to become the resident teacher at the main FPMT center, Manjushri Institute in Ulverston, England.
Lama Yeshe's decision to invite his former classmate to be Resident Teacher at the FPMT's Manjushri Institute in England was advised by the Dalai Lama.
The invitation was extended by Trijang Rinpoche, the root Guru of Geshe Kelsang.

If you are new, more info on Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s biography on this web-site under “biographies” http://www.fbuster.com/browse.php?u=aHR0cDovL2Rvcmplc2h1Z2Rlbi5jb20vd3AvP3A9MTg1Ng%3D%3D&b=29, or elsewhere, plenty, on the web.

Here below is an observation I found on wikipedia and that I find very interesting, actually worth to use it as a start for a topic.
What is the motivation for questioning Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s credential?
Doesn’t this discredit the entire community of lamas that have been re-cognized as qualified teachers?
If it doesn’t them what does it mean?

(QUOTE)
James Belither, former secretary of the NKT-IKBU and editor for Tharpa Publications, asks what it means to expel someone from an establishment they graduated from forty years previously, and explained the political circumstances surrounding Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's "expulsion":

“It is only now, when Geshe Kelsang has dared to face up to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile in refusing to accept the Dalai Lama's ban against the practice of Dorje Shugden—a practice given to him by his Spiritual Guide Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche—that Geshe Kelsang's credentials as a Buddhist teacher have been called into question.”
(END OF QUOTE)

[Helena]

Interesting point, HR. Thank you for taking the time and doing the research about this to further clarify for us all. These are the kinds of actions that will help clear the misunderstandings of all great lamas, because when people read all these information in here - they can start to reflect and think for themselves. Of course, the final decision lies with them. However, at the very least, they had more information now, with this site and forum.

Thanks again.

[triesa]

Thank you Hoperainbow for starting this thread. Infact this is closely linked with the thread started by Thaimonk "Is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso a Geshe?"

I believe, a lot of the back lashing against GKG is his prominient involvement against the Dalai Lama for banning Dorje Shugden practice.

At the end of the day, it is all about the "Dorje shugden" issue. If you are a DS practitioner, you will get critised. That is the situation right now, and for the time being.

So this post will being to all another angle to look at all the rumours and gossips against GKG, to clear misunderstandings at the least. And I believe, and I will always do, results always speak louder than words.

Cheers,
Triesa
 

[pgdharma]

Thank you, Hope Rainbow, for this new thread. I hope that there will be less back lashing and name calling in this new thread so that newbies will be able to learn more and receive logical information.

[beggar]

There is no doubt of GKG’s greatness – if you look at his results, it is clear that he is bringing Dharma to thousands of people everywhere! What is there to doubt?

I’ve been reading all the GKG posts with interest, but hadn’t replied yet. I didn’t feel I needed to then because a lot of unfolding that was a clear reflection of what is going on in the minds of all forum posters. I was very amused by the reactions myself.

The initial threads posted were not offensive – they were seeking answers and asking valid and fairly inoffensive questions. The moderators did not close down this post or lock it because it is not against the forum to ask questions and debate.

It is curious to see how people reacted so strongly to the questions asked about GKG but not so to the many things said against the dalai lama. I too agree that if we are allowed to speak critically about one Lama, then we should be allowed to question all; or none at all.

Yes, someone said it is like comparing apples with oranges. The issues at hand may vary, but the biggest similarity under it all is that we are speaking critically or badly against SOMEBODY’S GURU – how does it make you feel when it is your Guru?

Or is it okay when it’s not your Guru but someone who has been in the spotlight recently for some things that were not really done right?

Whatever it said and done, remember that there are still thousands and thousands of people out there who revere Dalai lama very much and he is still their Guru.

Present the facts, the figures, the whole big story. Yes, we should and we must do that. We cannot hide. But this is a call to be aware of how we talk about it and think: if these comments and questions about GKG upset us, then how would our comments, analysis, talk, discussion, critiques etc etc also upset thousands of other dharma practitioners who see the dalai lama as their guru.

This is an interesting topic to make us take stock of how we react and then, what we do about it.

[Vajraprotector]

I believe in GKG regardless of his credentials and when/why the credentials was brought up. A guru is a guru and he has his disciples and we need to respect him even if he’s just a monk with no Geshe title. GKG works hard to grow NKT (so many people from many countries has received the Dharma through NKT and GKG’s books) and make Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings pervasive.

I read GKG’s books and I personally feel that his books are excellent, explaining difficult concepts in easy to understand language and structure. I would like to quote from his book, Treasury of Merit: a commentary to the practice of offering to the spiritual guide,
We tend to focus on the external appearance of our Spiritual Guide without considering his actual nature. Because our Spiritual Guide appears to us in an ordinary form it is easy to assent to that appearance and relate to him as an ordinary being. To prevent this ordinary view of our Spiritual Guide, we need to contemplate the foregoing reasons again and and again. As has already been explained, pure view is an essential part of any Tantric practice. We shall never attain Tantric realisation until we can see our Spiritual Guide and Conqueror Vajradhara as inseparable.

I personally think we shouldn’t criticise a Guru ever, because we are not clear of the workings that is going on, for example in the case of Lucy James.  A guru might use unconventional means to subdue a student’s mind or to bring Dharma to many in an unconventional way.  We should focus on our practice and not influence others with our own views about certain Gurus, especially his students to think so as this will affect their practice or spiritual path. Ultimately, isn’t the purpose of Dharma practice to achieve realisation?

It’s said as ‘guidelines’ in the 50 Verses of Guru Devotion:
7. A disciple with sense should not accept as his Guru someone who lacks compassion or who is angersome, vicious or arrogant, possessive, undisciplined or boasts of his knowledge.

8. (A Guru should be) stable (in his actions), cultivated (in his speech), wise, patient and honest. He should neither conceal his shortcomings, nor pretend to possess qualities he lacks. He should be an expert in the meanings (of tantra) and in its ritual procedures (of medicine and turning back obstacles). Also he should have loving compassion and a complete knowledge of the scriptures.

9. He should have full experience in both ten fields, skill in the drawing of mandalas, full knowledge of how to explain the tantras, supreme faith and his senses fully under control.

These are the guidelines for a ‘perfect’ / ideal Guru, nowhere it is said that we need to seek a Geshe with high qualifications.  No doubt that expert in the meanings of Tantra and so on is important, but there’s not that many attained masters out there, so as long as we see a Guru works for the benefits of others and is sincere in propagating the Dharma, we should support and can take refuge with that Guru.

[WisdomBeing]

The question of GKG's credentials was an interesting one - not so much because of whether he had the so-called right credentials or not, but that it brought up such a furore. This was an eye-opening exercise in perspective because in my perspective, i did not find the initial question - "Is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso a Geshe?" offensive. I thought it was just factual and I also became curious whether he was a Geshe, not that it would change my deep respect for him, but i wanted to know as a matter of fact.

GKG is not my Guru, but i like his books. I find them well written and structured. And to have founded so many centres while being ostracised by the Dalai Lama and the establishment is certainly total kudos to him!

I found the sensitivity to the question whether GKG is a Geshe interesting because it made me think more about why certain people reacted that way whilst I didn't. Perhaps it is because he is not my Guru that i didn't take it personally. I like the point raised by beggar - how would we feel when it is our Guru under scrutiny, let alone under criticism. And that the Dalai Lama has hundreds of thousands of students who would react exactly as those who found the question about GKG offensive. It's a case of really stepping into each other's shoes. Not that there's a wrong or right. Just a different perspective.

Thanks guys - this was a little mind bender for me for today.

[Helena]

I think it is clear what bothers us may not bother others, and what bothers them may no bother us at all.

The few threads such as this, Lucy, etc have really made me think deeper.

Personally, I have always enjoyed GKG's books and found them to be truly enlightening. I would say that same for HHDL.

The thing that puzzles me is that some forum members would not be sensitive about saying unpleasant things about HHDL but they take offence against that some things being insinuated about GKG. Although I did not find the question offensive or insulting in any way, some members did. There again, shows the differences in others' minds in what they perceive as right and wrong.

I really started thinking about that Dharmapala wrote and even CC in the other threads. Because I saw that they had their valid points.

To me, this much is clear - if it is your Guru, even if some actions of his may appear wrong to others, you will not be happy to hear other people scrutinize him, let alone criticize him. I believe, this is the same for anyone who holds Guru Devotion seriously.

What may appear as crazy or illogical or even bad to outsiders, will not be seen that way to the students of that particular Guru. I can only think that apart from their Guru Devotion, these students would already be in the know of what their Guru's real intention is, motive is and what is the big picture. Where as, outsiders are not privy to any of that information. Hence, outsiders will doubt and scrutinize that Guru's actions.

To those who openly criticize HHDL, they think it is ok because they see that HHDL's actions are wrong. So, it is ok to talk about that. But again, HHDL also has his own legions of students. They would also feel the same stinging pain and anger when they have to hear these unpleasant words about their Guru. It is really no different.

I realise that I cannot bring myself to speak ill of HHDL but I can say that the Ban is bad and terrible. And that I will keep saying. I simply have no wish to speak ill of any Lama. But I can highlight what wrong has been done such as the ban, and how wrong TGIE is about DS being a spirit. I rather focus on that.

If someone's Guru is their only gateway into Dharma, then I have no wish to destroy that gateway. As I have asked myself, would I like that being done to me?

I seriously think not.

So, yes, our ways and thinking may be different - but I do not see why we still cannot work together to promote DS and Dharma. There are many things that we can still do together.

Yes, although I may not be actively protesting in the streets with slogans and banners. But I can and will happily donate to monasteries such as Shar Gaden & Serpom, sponsor DS practitioners & monks, write endless letters to media about how harmful the ban is to innocent people without disparaging anyone, distribute DS brochures & pictures, explain clearly & with logic why DS is not a spirit while maintaining Dharmic decorum. 

May be I am still idealistic to think that we still can bridge our differences in view. But I rather remain positive than negative. Also, I strongly believe in Karma and is deathly afraid of bad karma.

Thank you all for helping me see things much deeper and bigger - despite our differences. It is always good to challenge the mind. 

What I truly value in all these discussions is that it has helped me in seeing things from the other perspective. I am grateful for that as it aids me in understanding others more.

Have a good night.

[diamond girl]

I believe in GKG regardless of his credentials and when/why the credentials was brought up. A guru is a guru and he has his disciples and we need to respect him even if he’s just a monk with no Geshe title. GKG works hard to grow NKT (so many people from many countries has received the Dharma through NKT and GKG’s books) and make Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings pervasive.

I read GKG’s books and I personally feel that his books are excellent, explaining difficult concepts in easy to understand language and structure. I would like to quote from his book, Treasury of Merit: a commentary to the practice of offering to the spiritual guide,
We tend to focus on the external appearance of our Spiritual Guide without considering his actual nature. Because our Spiritual Guide appears to us in an ordinary form it is easy to assent to that appearance and relate to him as an ordinary being. To prevent this ordinary view of our Spiritual Guide, we need to contemplate the foregoing reasons again and and again. As has already been explained, pure view is an essential part of any Tantric practice. We shall never attain Tantric realisation until we can see our Spiritual Guide and Conqueror Vajradhara as inseparable.

I personally think we shouldn’t criticise a Guru ever, because we are not clear of the workings that is going on, for example in the case of Lucy James.  A guru might use unconventional means to subdue a student’s mind or to bring Dharma to many in an unconventional way.  We should focus on our practice and not influence others with our own views about certain Gurus, especially his students to think so as this will affect their practice or spiritual path. Ultimately, isn’t the purpose of Dharma practice to achieve realisation?

It’s said as ‘guidelines’ in the 50 Verses of Guru Devotion:
7. A disciple with sense should not accept as his Guru someone who lacks compassion or who is angersome, vicious or arrogant, possessive, undisciplined or boasts of his knowledge.

8. (A Guru should be) stable (in his actions), cultivated (in his speech), wise, patient and honest. He should neither conceal his shortcomings, nor pretend to possess qualities he lacks. He should be an expert in the meanings (of tantra) and in its ritual procedures (of medicine and turning back obstacles). Also he should have loving compassion and a complete knowledge of the scriptures.

9. He should have full experience in both ten fields, skill in the drawing of mandalas, full knowledge of how to explain the tantras, supreme faith and his senses fully under control.

These are the guidelines for a ‘perfect’ / ideal Guru, nowhere it is said that we need to seek a Geshe with high qualifications.  No doubt that expert in the meanings of Tantra and so on is important, but there’s not that many attained masters out there, so as long as we see a Guru works for the benefits of others and is sincere in propagating the Dharma, we should support and can take refuge with that Guru.

I could not agree more. Many have reacted to questions raised about GKG. I am sure it is in defence of GKG. I also find that many are acting out of ego and being right. The mind does work in mysterious ways to be right. At times delivering well intended messages in offensive manners. Nonetheless, my view is that I like GKG's books and based on results he has been successful in spreading the Dharma and many people have benefited. Perhaps my view is most simplistic but it is enough for me to accept. Life should be simple. And Dharma is Life. Simple.