 | This is an archive of past discussions about New Kadampa Tradition. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I made some changes. Hopefully this is now more clear. Because I'm not native English my English is quite bad. Please correct me where it is useful... -- Kt66 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Changed structure back so it starts by saying what NKT is in the usual Wikipedia style, and used some of your references to the controversy others more appropriate in other articles.
Hi, I've changed the article to be more accurate. For example, NKT is not an offshoot of the Gelugpa tradition, but a global Buddhist tradition following the teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. NKT is not part of Tibetan Buddhism at all, and this needs to be made clear. The definition of NKT I used is from the NKT internal rules (I am an NKT Resident Teacher). Thank you. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, Vajravarahi Centre UK.
Hi Kelsang Pagpa, fine to see your interest for having an accurate article. The same interest is mine. I changed your changes to have it also more accurate. We can avoid "offshot", no problem, but the basis of NKT should be pointed out and that is that NKT is based on a selection on Gelug Teachings and GKG is a Gelug Lama, and his teacher too, isn't it? If you follow Atisha and Tsongkhapa you should not practice Shugden, they dind't taught it, is it? But however of course you can! I agree: "NKT is not part of Tibetan Buddhism at all" and added: "it is a new tradition based on Gelug teachings", isn't it?
NKT should not announce to be Kadampa Tradition or Kadampa Buddhism because that tradition doesn't exist anymore this is quite a serious mistake. Please encourage NKT to change that points in their official advertisemnts. And also they should please change their mode to count centers or not mention such topics. But your change of how you count them is now very good. Also I changed some things of your changes in Shugden Controv. but how ever I want not defeat you, we can discuss. I wish just to have an objective and accurate atrticle.
Perhaps you can now agree to some changes or reverts as being accurate? What changes else do you find necessary?
Fine to hear from you :-)) --Kt66 16:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)