Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 March 31

= March 31 =

Have parents ever said "no" to adults trying to make their child a "dalai lama"
As monks come and do some arbitrary procedure to then claim "your child recognised these clothes thus they are the dalai lama", has it ever happened that parents of that child said "no you can't take my child and make them your religious fantasy"? If it did, did they then let it go or did they obses over trying to get that child by pressuring/coercing those parents until they caved? It seems that if they "could pick another child if one refused" they would lose all credibility, hence there is a massive conflict of interest there against consent. Ybllaw (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can tell. I think you're trying to apply 21st century Western and secular attitudes to a deeply religious and deferential society. It seems more likely to me that parents of an child identified as a lama would consider it the greatest blessing imaginable and a wonderful opportunity for their offspring. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than that. "A lama" : "Dalai Lama" ≈ "a priest" : "the Pope". But what is more, the Dalai Lama is the current reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara, who achieved the highest level of enlightenment. To call this an "opportunity" is a bit like saying that the Virgin Mary considered it a wonderful opportunity for her son Jesus that He was identified as the Son of God. --Lambiam 18:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe a bit understated, but I was trying to explain in basic terms. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is like saying "the stereotype of the suicidal Asian child is a lucky child for all of that performance pressure and lack of autonomy over their own life". It still amounts to complete inhibition of a person to define their own identity. Ybllaw (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With another difference being that "enlightenment" isn't even objectively measurable, relying entirely on anecdotal "evidence". Like telling a person "you must have the perfect body" only to push them into anorexia or some other BDD, where it is never enough. Ybllaw (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the only question here is "has it". And I don't believe "that there has ever been a society where all people were 'deeply religious'", perhaps afraid to be detected disagreeing, hence running into an exception at some point seems statistically only realistic. Ybllaw (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The procedures are not "arbitrary"; they are very thorough, but the main point is that the family will already have a close connection with the relevant monastery or whatever. (If you're basing your question on the plot of the film Little Buddha, most of that story is utter nonsense.) Shantavira|feed me 08:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a wealth of, or opponents may say a glut of, Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film. The example Little Buddha (1993) that is mentioned uses the device of a story within a story: the inner story is a reverential one about the ancient prince Siddhartha attaining enlightenment as Buddha while the outer one is an obviously fictional one about a supposed rebirth of a lama in modern Canada. While their candidate child is not averse, his disbelieving parents are understandably sceptical to monks' plans to take their child to Bhutan to be tested. This occurrence in a fictional film is a fantasy that does not rate a reply of "Yes, it has actually happened" to the OP. It would not be necessary to repeat the warning I gave the OP about anti-religious attack that impinges on a living person if their continuing tirade didn't show that point is not well taken. If we endorse films at all then I recommend "Kundun" (1997) that depicts the youthful selection of the now-living Dalai Lama based on his own recollections. Philvoids (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your personal hostility to me, however subtle you are trying to make it using words such as "tirade" sparingly, seems to me to be close to if not already a violation of the policy of asking questions on this page. You are free to disagree, but you are at this point attacking me personally it seems. In this comment you seem to assume "that my entire comment was based on something from a fictional film", one that I have never heard of before nor seen, thus this assumption would be false. Ybllaw (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a debating platform, and the Reference desk is not meant for offering opinions. --Lambiam 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "these procedures [...] are very thorough" seems nonsense. There is no such "as objective evidence about a claim of reincarnation", it doesn't matter how long of an array of fallacies you concatenate, it is all anecdotal evidence, thus calling it "thorough" is impossible, as thorough means objective. Ybllaw (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to your question has already been given by User:Alansplodge, not as far as we know. regarding your comment on User:Shantavira, your definition of the word "thorough" isn't the common one, which is "Painstaking and careful not to miss or omit any detail". see thorough on wiktionary. That means that you can be thoroughly subjective. Rmvandijk (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the answer to my question has not been given by User:Alansplodge, as his contribution was far from confident, all he said was "not as far as I can tell", not contributing anything with significant confidence that would make this question close to answered.
 * As to the discussion about how the word "thorough" is presented as "evidence" here..
 * Using the other definition on that same page which is "Utter; complete; absolute.". You can't be complete about something for which there is no objective evidence. Only objective evidence can be objectively complete. Subjective anecdotal claims, which "alleged reincarnation evidence" relies entirely upon, is not objective thus cannot be complete.
 * Regardless of the definition of the word "thorough", to stick to logical analysis of evidence, it mattes WHAT those details are. Not sure if this is correct usage of "non sequitur", but the words "it does not follow" do apply here. There are no details from which the proof "reincarnation" follows, hence "thorough" doesn't add any logical evidence, it only tries to create a false emotional pressure of "thoroughness" through saying "I am very invested hence that counts for something", no it doesn't. Perhaps the word for that is "sunk cost fallacy". Ybllaw (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ybllaw, please see our articles Evidence of absence and Argument from ignorance, the latter being an Informal fallacy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about "disproving reincarnation", both Argument from ignorance and Evidence of absence are about expecting a negative, in this case I assume you mean "expecting reincarnation to not exist". That is not part of my argument. My argument is that there is no objective base, regardless of whether reincarnation is so or not (which cannot be objectively proven). And to take this back to where this started, my calling the procedure that "says to prove reincarnation" arbitrary, no matter the quantity of evidence, as it has no quality. Ybllaw (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Criticizing users who are trying to answer your questions will certainly yield better answers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is meant as a covert way of accusing me of criticising users. I did not in my view. I criticised their provided claims, which, yes, that does yield better answers as testing the evidence is a scientific process. Ybllaw (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out what "Not the answer to my question has not been given" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given your ease with words I think you have had no problem figuring out that that was a typo for "No, the answer to my question ...". Ybllaw (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're still misinterpreting "thorough". A detailed method based on false assumptions can still be thorough. Then back to the main question, : No, this has never happened as far as we know/As far as the people responding have been able to find out.
 * As an additional point, your point that reincarnation has never been proven is irrelevant when most of the population shares the believe that it exists. If the parents believe in reincarnation (and the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama in particular), they won't be inclined to refuse the priests, because for them it is not a "religious fantasy", it is their religious belief and if the investigation by the priests is sufficiently thorough for the parents to believe. That was (is?) the case in the region the Dalai Lama typically comes from. Aside from that, having your son become the next spiritual leader of your people is an honour (I'd assume). All of that would make it unlikely that a refusal would have occurred.Rmvandijk (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)