Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 4

Chinese law on reincarnation
Not sure it really changes anything enough that it needs a specific mention in the article, but according to there is a Chinese law which will go into effect in September 2007 which "regulates" reincarnation. If we could track down more details, I suppose it might belong on wikipedia somewhere (this article or elsewhere), or perhaps it is pretty much already covered by the "has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations" language. Kingdon 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's both fascinating and atrocious at the same time. Please keep us posted if you come across anything else. I'll do a similar search around to see what I can dig up on the subject.--Bentonia School 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We do have an article about the regulations already, by the way: State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5 (it can also be linked to at the more succinct Reincarnation Application). I don't think the new regulations directly impact the future of the Dalai Lamas, since the Chinese government has been saying for a long time that they will regulate the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, and they famously did control the choice of the (government-accepted) 10th Panchen Lama. The purpose of the new regulations seems to be regularise interference in the recognition of tulkus and to apply it much more widely. There have been a few other government-sanctioned reincarnations&mdash;most notably Ogyên Trinlê' Dorje as the 17th Karmapa, along with the 11th Nenang Pawo and the 7th Reting. The 12th Trungpa also lives in China, but I'm not sure what his official status is&mdash;he seems to be tolerated at the very least. I don't know how many examples there are already, but Order No. 5 means there will be a lot more in the future.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds similar to the appointment of archbishops in the Church of England (with approval by the British PM), and saints by the Vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.171 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's nothing like that, since the Vatican is a religious body while the Chinese government is hostile to religion. It is slightly more similar to the early Church of England, since it involves a political power arrogating religious authority to itself. But the monarchs who did this were at least enthusiastic members of the church they were controlling. Anyway, in the modern, civilised era, the government careful avoids much political interference with the Church of England ... if they didn't, public pressure would force them to give up their control altogether.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Vatican is/ was a bit more than a religious body. The Chinese government is not hostile to religion(s), in fact it permits religions, whereas the Vatican does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.44 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion is poison. -Mao Zedong --Bentonia School 10:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * God is great. -George W. Bush —Babelfisch 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Allah is Great" The Holy Koran.

Did Mao really say that, and if he did then in what context? In Li's biography of Mao, Mao said when he was a boy, when someone was ill in his village, the adults would take the ashes left from burnt incense sticks offered to the deities/ buddha, mix it with water and feed it to the sick child; and many a time the children (including himself) got better. There was no other medicine otherwise. Mao attributed the healing effect of the burnt residue not to the substance itself, but to the religious belief that it would heal (known to us as the Placebo Effect). Mao certainly knew religious belief could have positive as well as negative effects. 81.157.100.44 02:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When heart is open. - Van Morrison


 * A new article on China's opposition to the US giving a congressional medal to the Dalai Lama came out today. I'm probably not qualified to write the paragraph though, so if anybody else wants to take it on... Virginiabob 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1th and 8th Dalai Lama
Is it just me or did the monk who painted the 8th Dalai Lama just add some things to the picture of the 1th Dalai Lama? Or maybe a photoshop joker? I Overlapped the two images and aside from a couple of color changes and some things added its identical. 80.57.168.122 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a personal opinion, I suggest that any photoshop jokers be removed immediately. They just don't belong here...especially for religious articles. Prowikipedians (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Reincarnation"
I noticed in the discussions above on "reincarnation" and related subjects that there seems to be much confusion on the nature of its interpretation in Buddhism. Nat Krause wondered what the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism (Damien Keown. Oxford University Press. 2003. ISBN 0-19-860560-9) had to say and, I think, that would make a good start. Here is the entry on reincarnation, from p. 235:


 * "Term generally avoided by writers on *Buddhism since it implies the existence of an immortal soul (*atman) that is periodically incarnated in a fleshly host, a notion more proper to *Hinduism. By contrast, Buddhism denies the existence of an immortal soul and does not accept the dualistic opposition between spirit and matter it presupposes. Accordingly, the English term preferred by Buddhist writers to designate the dynamic and constantly changing continuity of the individual from one life to the next is '*rebirth'. Neither this term nor 'reincarnation' has a direct *Sanskrit equivalent, and Indian sources speak instead of 'rebecoming' (Skt., *punarbhava) or 'repeated death'(Skt., punarmṛtyu)."

In regards to the Dalai Lama, there is a very good discussion of many of the subtleties of "reincarnation" as it is understood by His Holiness in "Chapter VII. The Big Bang and Reincarnation" in the book, Violence & Compassion: Dialogues on Life Today. His Holiness the Dalai Lama with Jean-Claude Carrière. (1994) Image Book. ISBN 0-385-50144-7. Here is a brief quote from p. 187 of this chapter:


 * "Some hasty journalists still present the Dalai Lama as a living god. For a Buddhist this expression makes no sense. The institution of the Dalai Lama, a temporal and spiritual authority, is actually subject to two requirements: he must be the guaranteed reincarnation of the one who has preceded him, and hence of all the others, going back to the fourteenth century. The Tibetans are deeply attached to this notion of lineage, of a very high spiritual energy that is transmitted from individual to individual and that, each time, can be intensified. The present Dalai Lama claims to have had long discussions, in dreams, with his predecessor, and to have taken his advice.
 * On the other hand, by his very function the Dalai Lama is considered to be a "manifestation" or "emanation" of Avalokiteshvara himself, the lord of the white lotus, the great bodhisattva of compassion. Thus he would be the seventy-fourth descendant of another line, going back to a Brahman child who lived at the same time as the Buddha. Today Buddhists no longer seem to accept the idea that there really exists in heaven a "being," a "person" who becomes incarnate in human form. Rather they see that emanation as a particular force allowing the Dalai Lama to concentrate in his person the powers of compassion that each one of us possesses."

However, this is a very complex and subtle subject and I recommend that you read the whole chapter if you want to understand the Dalai Lama's position more deeply.

I would like to add here a story from my own experience. Although many Buddhists claim that one "must" believe in "reincarnation" to be a Buddhist, many years ago I asked a very high lama whether this was true. He replied (I am paraphrasing here): "Of course not! It is not at all necessary to believe in reincarnation to be a Buddhist. The only thing that is important is that one lives one's life as if it is true - in other words, as if any sentient creature you meet might have been your mother in a previous life and that, therefore, you treat every creature with the respect and love you would show to your mother."

I hope all this goes some small way to answering the questions raised above. With all best wishes, John Hill 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that the first quote above is talking about the use of the English word "reincarnation". I think it's good advice&mdash;I usually try to avoid talking about "reincarnation" when talking about Buddhism. It's also worth noting that the second quotation, when it says "he must be the guaranteed reincarnation of the one who has preceded him" contradicts Bentonia's comments above.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I find the piece above conflicting. It says that the Dalai Lama conversed in dreams with his predecessor. If the Dalai Lama is the "reincarnation" of his predecessor, then how can he speak with him in dreams? Wouldn't he be his own predecessor? There would be no one to speak with. Regarding "having to believe in reincarnation", my own teacher agrees with John Hill's teacher. My teacher related a story where the Buddha met with a group of atheists who didn't believe in karma or rebecoming. The Buddha simply said, "That's fine. There's no need. But why not be kind, avoid anger, and seek goodness anyway? It will bring more value to your life - and, if it just so happens that rebecoming is real, you'll be all set." I'd like to point out here, too, that this story relates that karma has great effect on our living right now. We make the conditions of our own lives. --Bentonia School (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Pascal also said something similar, which went something like' "You can mock me for believing in God and the life after death as you don't believe there is a God. If there is no God or life after death, then you won't be able to mock me after our deaths, as neither of us will be there, but if there is a God and life after death, then you better watch out". I wonder if Pascal knew Buddhism, or derived his remark independently? I should imagine that it was independent, as there must be many people with the same thought. 81.159.80.99 17:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all very well, but Buddha did not say he would be 'reincarnated' or 'reborn' or whatever you wish the word to mean. I may be wrong, but I think it is a buddhist belief that once you reach buddhahood or the buddha state, you are free from the pains and sufferings of rebirth and the life cylce. The office of dalai lama was never created by Buddha but by a human being long after the death of Buddha, namely a Mongolian ruler. 86.161.56.69 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that, in Buddhist belief, a fully realised person or "Buddha" does not need to continue on (is "liberated from") the wheel of birth and rebirth. However, Mahayana Buddhism (the form mainly practiced in northern countries such as Tibet, Mongolia, China and Japan), took this philosophy a further step whereby an enlightened being (bodhisattva) - instead of just stepping out of the round of rebirths into the state of nirvana - takes a vow choosing to help others by being reborn over and over into this world of suffering until all beings reach enlightenment. This bodhisattva concept developed many centuries before the first Dalai Lama - probably around the 1st century BCE or CE, if not earlier. The Dalai Lamas are considered to emanations of one of those bodhisattvas - Chenresig or Avalokiteshvara - the Bodhisattva of Compassion. Cheers, John Hill 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand on this further: in Tibetan Vajrayana, it is said that when a Buddha is fully enlightened, he is able to send 'manifestation bodies' (Nirmanakaya) to the realms of sentient beings, in which he can manifest as Bodhisattva, or even an ordinary being, to teach sentient beings certain lessons. So a igh Bodhisattva would NOT chose to avoid becoming a Buddha, but first become a Buddha, and equipped with an omniscient mind return as an emanation to help others. These emanations are obviously not easy to spot for someone at a normal level of spiritual development.rudy (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

'in Tibetan Vajrayana': But this Tibetan proposition was created at least 1500 years after Buddha died. Who are the Tibetans to tell us what Buddha should be or should do? 81.159.80.99 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This depends on your viewpoint. According to Tibetan tradition and, indeed, Mahayana teachings in general, these bodhisattva teachings were handed down directly from the Buddha himself. While you may not agree with this viewpoint you must surely admit that there is no firm "proof" one way or the other and, therefore, your statement that: "this Tibetan proposition was created at least 1500 years after Buddha died" is no more firmly grounded than the Tibetan position. It is just your personal opinion. John Hill (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

John Hill: "is no more firmly grounded than the Tibetan position." I can't agree with you more. If what I say is garbage, then according to you the Tibetan position is also garbage. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying either position is "garbage." Either might be true or false, or they could both be false - there is no real way I know of to tell for sure. However, the concept of the bodhisattva - a 'fully-realised' person who choses to be reborn to help others into this world of suffering over and over again until all sentient beings reach enlightenment - is a concept that goes back at least as far as the period of the Great Kushans (1st to 3rd centuries CE) - so it is at least 1,800-1,900 years old and only, at most, about 500 to 600 years after the death of Gautama Buddha - not 1,500 years as you claim. Furthermore, seeing as it is the firm belief of many sincere and kindly-minded people it seems a bit rough to me to refer to their position as "garbage". 'Misguided' or even 'wrong' would do - there is no need to start rubbishing (excuse the bad pun!) people and their beliefs. Let's try to keep the discussions here civil at least. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

About what should be discussed on this talk page

 * The only question I see in Rudy's last comment is "can you please stick to the topic of this page please?", which, sadly, went unanswered. Much of the above is contrary to what talk pages are for, so I'm going to remove it.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nat, this page is about the Dalai Lama, so the Dalai Lama was discussed. Reincarnation is about the future is it not? 81.159.80.99 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this page is certainly not about the Dalai Lama. This is a Wikipedia talk page. It is about the Wikipedia article on the Dalai Lamas, and specifically about how to improve it. A certain degree of tolerance is sometimes extended to comments that serve the purpose of clarifying information about the subject in ways that could eventually be worked into the article. However, I'm afraid I don't see your comments as an example of this sort.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Nat, this page is a talk page about the DL.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.49.36 (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a talk page about a Wikipedia article.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on Nat, which article are you talking about? Is it about any article or one particular article called 'Dalai Lama'? Indeed a section of this said article is titled 'Future of Dalai Lama'. If you want to improve the article why don't you add a piece on the relationship of the Dalai Lama with the Christian Churches in the West, and where his future lies. 81.154.202.172 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "An article about the Dalai Lama" is not the same thing as "the Dalai Lama". This talk page is about the former.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Nat, what should 'an article about the Dalai Lama' contain? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand. Please feel free to read the article, or at least skim its table of contents, to learn about the subjects contained in this article.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Nat, of course you can't physically tranform the DL (or anyone else) into a computer article, so like you say 'an article about the DL' and 'The DL' are different things. An 'article about the DL' means getting information about the DL. One section of this article is entitled the future of the DL, and I merely pointed out (with justification) that the DL has no future in the West (from the view point of religion and not politics); for example the Pope won't see him this week on his trip to Italy. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but I can't see how it is in any way relevant to this article, since opinions like this would never be incorporated into the text under any circumstances.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nat, why are you so afraid of the truth of the Roman Catholic Church's view of the Dalai Lama being pointed out? Are you afraid of the truth, or are you just too biased? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the cold light of truth chills me to the very core, your above comment is not the correct subject matter to appear on a Wikipedia talk page.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not the correct subject matter because the truth is very different from your opinions and from what you have expressed in these same pages? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not correct subject matter because it has nothing to do with how this article can be written or improved.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Nat, you've let these pages be used for China-bashing and Chinese-bashing. Where's the discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's attitude towards Lamaism? Are you afraid that the truth is that China in reality respects Tibetan Buddhism because she sees it as a permanent part of Chinese culture, whereas in the West it is merely another 'Mickey Mouse' religion, and used as a political tool? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the talk page guidelines.--Addhoc (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've just taken a look and it hasn't changed. I have followed the guidelines, see for yourself: Make proposals; discuss edits; deal with facts; stay objective. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonymous #81.154, I have also usually allowed you to use these pages as a forum for your ideas, but here I draw a line.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How does creating a section describing the relationship between the DL and the Vatican not improve the article, when there is already a section on the future of the DL? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with adding a section to the article, provided that it iis informative, accurate, and NPOV. However, many of your talk page comments discuss the subject rather than the contents of the article.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then please add a section on the DL's relationship with the Vatican so that it is informative, accurate and NPOV. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I prefer not to do that, since the information doesn't strike me as interesting or important.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds very POV. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nat, would you like others to add the section on the relationship between the Vatican and the DL then? 81.159.81.146 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with the Dalai Lama's representative
I will be conducting an interview with the Dalai Lama's Representative to the Americas, Tashi Wangdi. If you have a question you would like me to consider asking, please leave it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone/Tibet -- David  Shankbone  19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Title?
The article states that the 3rd Dalai Lama bestowed the title retroactively on his predecessors, but it might be helpful to explain who exactly 1 & 2 WERE i.e. what they were known as in their own lifetimes. What position & titles they held, etc.75.42.157.35 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't really know, but I assume that they were known by their names, Gendün Drub and Gendün Gyatso, and that their titles would have been abbot of a given monastery: Tashilhünpo and Drêpung, respectively.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is unreadable
I've tagged this because it fails to provide an accessible overview of the subject to a casual reader. The first sentence alone requires multiple parses and several references to linked material. This should be reworked. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, speedy work. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it. If you find unreadably dense buzzword-filled text including the terms mindstream or bodymind or heartmind, that's the work of B9 hummingbird hovering who has been rewriting a lot of Tibetan Buddhist articles trying to link to these articles. Unfortunately, the result is unreadable. I've been having to fix it elsewhere also. Just look back to the version before s/he touched it. GlassFET 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a look. Ouch. Anyway, thanks for the quick work. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I should say that the introduction to this article left something to be desired even before B9 hummingbird hovering's edits, and it's a pity that this has distracted us from the goal of improving it beyond that baseline.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Anyway, I see it's undergoing rewrite again, so I've tagged it again for now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the user responsible for the unreadability is back after his block and doing the same thing again. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue to obstruct these edits, naturally.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Obstruct"? Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Revert and re-edit changes which seem detrimental, until they have been discussed and agreed upon on the talk page.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was blocked for cussing GlassFET with a boon, a user that is a repeat offending sock-puppet. Everything is not as it seems!
 * *vajra laff*
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is NPOV possible?
After reading all the above bickering, I added this section.

I maintain that, except in the most trivial cases, NPOV is not possible. There are still people who believe in a geocentric universe (pre Copernicus). NPOV wouold require that we give their view strictly equal weight. See my user page. Too Old (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The last section is a joke. Right? Just read the last sentence, the guy writing it says that HE admires the DL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.174.234 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)