Talk:Dalai Lama - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.159.80.99 (talk) at 17:16, 2 December 2007 (→"Reincarnation"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:16, 2 December 2007 by 81.159.80.99 (talk) (→"Reincarnation")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) For older discussion, see Archive 1

Tibet Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Buddhism Start‑class

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Reincarnation

I presume that the reference to the likelihood of the 14th Dalai Lama being reborn is part of the referenced statement made by him, and I therefore propose adding the word "that" to it to clarify this. Otherwise, it looks like a statement of fact from the author rather than the Lama's personal opinion. After all, there is no scientific evidence supporting the idea of reincarnation. Here is the quote:

"However, he has also stated that the purpose of his repeated incarnations is to continue unfinished work and, as such, if the situation in Tibet remains unchanged, it is very likely that he will be reborn to finish his work" Omega Man 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is again the common misunderstanding of the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. He will not be reborn to be the Dalai Lama again, the manifestation of the Buddha of Compassion will remanifest in another person. The current Dalai Lama has made thorough comments in interviews regarding this, the most recent in print I've already cited earlier. The continued confusion of this topic on wikipedia is astounding. And, please, don't respond with anything regarding reincarnation and science, you'll be stating the obvious and beating an already thoroughly beaten dead horse. --Bentonia School 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting (I had neglected to notice your previous comment). I've never been very clear on what the official line is on this topic. I wonder how well these comments by the Dalai Lama that you've cited accord with what other Tibetan Buddhist sources say about it. I also wonder what the most authoritative source for general information about this would be—maybe something like the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism?—Nat Krause 01:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find other sources. --Bentonia School 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

'The continued confusion of this topic on wikipedia is astounding.' Of course it is, lamaism is just a system of muddled up beliefs. 86.161.56.69 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your disrespect for what many millions of people believe is quite astounding as well... Can we please keep this a decent discussion on how to improve this article, you can find out more about Buddhist views on many discussion forums on the web - THIS PAGE IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM ON BUDDHIST BELIEFS.rudy 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on rudy, there are 5 to 6 thousand million people on this planet at this very moment; a few million is an insignificant number, it won't even change the margin of error figure. Respect must be given to the truth, how can you base a discussion or entry in an encyclopedia without proof? 86.161.56.69 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also respect all followers of Rasputin. 86.161.56.69 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So we should disrespect all minorities: then why do you bother to work on the entry of the beliefs of a minority? Perhaps you are a minority who thrives on disrespect, should I therefore ignore and disrespect you? Your logic matches a 6-year old, sorry. rudy 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Incarnation

The present Dalai Lama has said himself (see The Story of Tibet, ch. 1) that some Dalai Lamas were in fact manifestations of Manjushri and not Chenrizi. Furthermore, the explanation that the 14th gives on the position of the Dalai Lama regarding the thread of manifestations is contrary to common belief, and the explanations given here in this article. I believe this article in total is very unaccomodating in the actuality of the Dalai Lama; that is, it is far too "Western minded". --Bentonia School 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Belief and existence are two different things. Just because some Stone-Age people believe they came to being from some mumbo-jumbo, does not mean that the mumbo-jumbo actually existed. In fact, it would demonstrate that this mumbo-jumbo is far from true. Are you suggesting that people with a good understanding of modern knowledge should believe what a primitive Stone-Age people tell them? 81.155.103.36 11:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that traditional knowledge, or as you seem to prefer 'mumbo-jumbo', as it is believed by these, as you so delicately put it, 'Stone-Age people' should be distributed correctly. Nonetheless, it's obvious by the tone of your post that you are immediately opposed to Tibetan culture and history, and therefore I'm not anticipating any form of crafted or well-intended response. --Bentonia School 06:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not say traditional knowledge is 'mumbo-jumbo'. Take for example. A traditional people may gather plant products for medicine for an illness. Hey presto the medicine works every time. This then becomes traditional knowledge. But of course the traditional people cannot explain it. They only know that if you have a certain illness, you take a certain plant prepared in a certain way. We explain it as that the plant had desirable chemicals (natural products) which can cure the illness. We can prove this because we can make these chemicals in the laboratory and they have the same effect as, or even better effect than the natural extracts. If the tradition people gave the reason that the plant worked because a good fairy had breathed on it and you must catch it before dawn, then this explanation is 'mumbo-jumbo'. Understood? 81.155.98.145 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not understood, and simply because it has no relevance to my first post to which you were replying. You made no attempt whatsoever to comment on the topic raised in my post; you simply feigned a sophisticated stance and responded accordingly. --Bentonia School 10:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Tibetans traditionally explain their own origins as rooted in the marriage of a monkey and a mountain ogress." This is taken from Wiki page on Tibetans. Do you now understand what is meant by mumbo-jumbo? 81.155.98.145 02:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand fully your ridiculous stance on human culture, but I fail to see the parallel you're attempting to draw between that and what I initially stated. Woman was created from a rib; the earth was molded by a raven; a bear was turned into a woman and wed with the prince of heaven. You're making no simple statement about human culture, rather you're directly attacking the culture of Tibet. --Bentonia School 13:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I say your other examples are not 'mumbo jumbo'? It would seem you do know what is meant by 'mumbo jumbo'. Tibetans are entitled to have modern enlightenment as everyone else. 81.155.98.145 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you're trying to get across. You've made no logical response and/or comment regarding the ideas I put forth in my original post. You've completely lost me and wasted time in your other-topical non-sense ramblings. Furthermore, you don't sign your posts. That should've been my first clue. Shame on me. --Bentonia School 10:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stone Age?

The anonymous writer of the note attacking Tibetans as "Stone Age" and believing in "mumbo-jumbo" should really study something about the culture of Tibet before making such ridiculous comments. Tibetans have have had highly-sophisticated metallurgical industries since at least early in the 1st millennium CE and, I believe, much earlier. Do you really think that Tibet could have conquered the Chinese capital and much of northern India in the 8th century with just stone weapons? So, why attack Tibetan culture as "Stone Age"? You are only showing your own ignorance. Tibet has for centuries had a highly literate culture (the first true bilingual dictionary in the world - Sanskrit-Tibetan - was published in 801) and a higher proportion of the Tibetan population was literate than in any European country until the 19th century.

I think without realising it you have answered your own question. The 'Tibetans' of the 8th Century were not the 'Stone Age' Tibetans of the 19th and 20th Century; these earlier 'Tibetans' were the ancestors of the latter Tibetans. There was no lamaism back in the 8th Century. So what happened between the 8th Century and the 20th Century? Lamaism was introduced and it destroyed the earlier culture of the more sophisticated ancestors of the latter Tibetans. As you have written in the Pluperfect Tense 'Tibetans have had highly-sophisticated...', you no doubt realise that they do not have that anymore. These latter Tibetans had destroyed the culture of their ealier ancestors, so don't blame anyone else. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the language of the earlier 'Tibetans' and the language of Tibetans today are very different. 81.155.98.145 03:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I should add that, having lived for some years among people who really grew up in the "Stone Age", I found many of them at least as intelligent and wise (and often wiser) than most of us "sophisticated" 21st century freaks. Please keep your prejudices to yourself in future. John Hill 07:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the term intelligence with the term Stone-Age or Bronze-Age. I have never stated that Tibetans are not intelligent. Neanderthals may have been as intelligent or even more intelligent than Homo sapiens sapiens (the couch potatoes) of today; they certainly had a larger brain than us. However Neanderthals died out. Human intelligence means the ability to solve problems, and being wise means being able to make the correct decision and not to follow blindly. Buddha came across the problem of human illnesses and death (so do we all). He made an attempt to solve the problem by claiming that the cause of these was ultimately desire. Get rid of desire and you will get rid of the suffering caused by illnesses. Well, call me unintelligent if you must, but I believe the illnesses buddha witnessed were not caused by desire, but by microorganisms. Every Tibetans must be allowed to use their intelligence and be given the opportunity to learn about the scientific reasons for what they observe instead of being fed mumbo-jumbo explanations from birth and accepting them as the truth. Most of us may of course not be as intelligent as people now living in Stone Age conditions as, unlike them, we would not be able to survive without food from the supermarket; but we live in a world of collective intelligence where our collective survival does not depend on the claiming or the following of any one individual human as being more intelligent and wiser than the rest. We expect the supermarkets to be there tomorrow, and the day after that. I would rather live in my unintelligent world of supermarkets than your intelligent world where I have to suffer being covered by fleas and lice and smelling of BO, any day. I dare say if the starving of Africa had a choice, they too would choose this unintelligent life. I wish the intelligent and wise Tibetan people to survive and thrive and not to die out as the Neanderthals had done. 81.155.98.145 02:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I really do not want to argue with you - but, you seem to have misunderstood the Buddha's central message - how to stop suffering. He never taught that one can escape illness or death - only how to manage and get rid of the suffering regularly associated with those processes.

You also seem to misunderstand the causes of such disasters such as the large numbers of starving people in Africa. This is largely the result of overpopulation with resultant competition for dwindling resources and misuse of the environment through greed both within the affected countries and through international interference by companies and governments. I don't know of any evidence of large-scale starvation in Africa or, indeed, in other parts of the world in ancient times, except after large-scale warfare or major natural disasters (both of which also cause such problems today - as I am sure you know)

While nomadic peoples did, indeed, sometimes starve, the numbers were small and so we didn't have catastrophic disasters like we see today. In fact nomads, in general, were larger, lived longer, healthier lives than agriculturalists up until at least the end of the 19th century. I contend that your 'supermarket culture' is far more likely to bring about the extinction of Homo "sapiens" than any nomadic lifestyle (although I hope I am mistaken here). You seem to have more faith in "collective intelligence" than I do. It seems to me to be more likely to drag decisions and understanding down to the "lowest common denominator".

Further - it is unknown what caused Neanderthals to die out - recent theories include interbreeding or inability to compete with new hominid strains migrating out of Africa. I think it is most unlikely that adapting to a 'supermarket culture' (if they had had the choice) would have saved them.

Finally, what makes you think most nomads are "covered by fleas and lice and smelling of BO"? This may be true of some who live in very cold and dry climates where bathing and changing and cleaning clothes are difficult - but, it certainly is not true of nomads in warmer, wetter climates.

I notice you have just added a note attacking the development of "Lamaism" and insinuating that it took Tibetans backwards. I think the fact that Buddhism and "Lamaism" helped to produce hundreds of years of almost continuous peace in what had previously been a very warlike culture is is well worth discussing in more detail. Best wishes, John Hill 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about Tibetans and not nomads in general. Nomads and Tibetans are different things. 81.155.98.145 03:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW I have never stated the causes of any of the events stated. I have only stated the facts. There are starving people in Africa, whatever the causes may be, and if they could live the supermarket way, I am sure they would do a swap. You also seem to take the view that because you do not know, then it did not happen. Population dynamics could be modelled. From your own descriptions, lamaism did destroy the earlier 'Tibetan' culture you described; and also lamaism enslaved the majority of the latter Tibetans. Let's face it, buddha did not know the real cause of the diseases he saw, he gave a reason for them, but it is totally incorrect. 81.155.98.145 03:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting of course. However, this talk page is for discussion of how to make improvements to the article, something not actually even discussed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame the anonymous writer of the notes above seems to deliberately ignore my comment that the Buddha's central message was about how to handle suffering - not to describe the causes of diseases. It is also a shame (s)he takes the self-serving PRC line that the Tibetan people were "enslaved" by "Lamaism" rather than recognising that most Tibetan families had at least one monk or nun in lamaseries which provided rigorous education in many subjects - such as medicine, astronomy, history, etc., etc., not just religious ones, as well as providing a wide range of services to local communities. Most Tibetan families were beneficiaries of the monasteries and cannot be described as "enslaved", although some people might fairly have been called serfs of some of the noble families. I will leave it at that as I think we should now both take the advice of ♦Tangerines♦ and begin discussions on how we can improve this article rather than having endless debates on this page. Sincerely, John Hill 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Training in astronomy- don't you mean astrology? Teaching medicine- at what stage of development is/ was their level in the subject? Would you trust them to do heart surgery on you? Beneficiaries of the monasteries? Don't you mean the monasteries were beneficiary of the people? 81.155.100.190 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame that John Hill thinks any question on the truth of lamaism is a self-serving PRC line. His view is wrong because in fact the PRC permits lamaism for everybody in the PRC and not just the Tibetan nationality. 81.157.100.44 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be more precise to use the word emanation or manifestation instead of incarnation to describe the relationship of Dalai Lama and Avalokiteshvara, since the word incarnation usually is (mis)understood to imply being someones rebirth, which would be incorrect interpretation. Using the term (re)icarnation even to describe the buddhist concept of rebirth is frequently depreciated, so its not confused with transmigration of the soul. Re this mostly offtopic discussion, its rather irrelevant how ppl feel about the accuracy of tibetan beliefs for the purposes of wikipedia and this article. Imo considering it 'stone age mumbo jumbo' is a valid perspective on it (well almost, a more fitting comparison is imo high medieval culture of europe, plus some aditional technology, like printing, or even something like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwelth or the early new age, given its decentralization and high percentage of privileged class; 'stone age' is definitely incorrect), though simply one of many possible perspectives. But i still cannot resist responding to the claim 'lamaism' destroyed the earlier tibetan culture; there has been a lot of study in the Zhang Zhung culture, the initial culture of Tibet, and it seems Tibetan traditional beliefs originating in that culture have incorporated buddhist elements slowly through centuries through the silk road transmission of buddhism, and is today a completely buddhist tradition, often considered tibetan fifth school, and is very much alive and well, and has been vibrant for its entire history, even at points being intellectually dominant in precisely the fields of buddhist philosophy. The indian schools of buddhism didnt get a decisive upper hand in their power in comparison to Bon untill after the 12th century, and by that time, Bon was allready pretty much fully buddhist by its own dynamics. The reverse exchange happened as well, if in lesser degree. So only if you consider cultural exchange as such an act of desctruction can you consider this cultural dynamic destructive. Now regarding their feudal past, Im inclined to think its less rosy then presented; though this hardly differentiates this culture from the abusive history of any other historical civilization, and imo, from the abuses of current civilization. All cultures have their origin myths; saying their ppl descended from union of monkeys and supernatural beings (not sure if 'ogress' is a correct presentation) seems at least no less unreasonable than ppl being shaped out of clay (and rib) by an omnipotent being. And this was the official intelligent speculation on the subject in the west as well, until little before Darwin explained evolution. Its clearly true that Tibetans did not discover evolution, and your example doesnt demonstrate anything more than that. To claim this as blatant example of 'mambo jumbo' is to ignore the evolution of ideas in general.You are also inconsistent in your criticism, since the Tibetan mytho of their origins is not a buddhist myth; buddhism is silent on the issue of origins in general, and clearly particularly disinterested in origins of a specific small ethnicity unknown to Indians of 5ct BC; that example of 'mumbo jumbo' is an example of precisely such traditional tibetan culture you so lament supposedly losing..--83.131.157.223 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"since the Tibetan mytho of their origins is not a buddhist myth; buddhism is silent on the issue of origins in general,". By western definition lamaism and buddhism are two different religions, in the same way Roman Catholicism and Prostestantism are two different religions. Not only is buddhism silent on origins, buddha told his disciples he did not know what happened after death and not to worship him after he died. 81.159.82.171 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddha didn't say he was going to be reborn into another body. I might be wrong but I thought once you achieve the buddha state, you were free of rebirths, and the pains and suffering associated with the life cycles. 81.159.86.60 22:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See my first post at the top of this page. I've already brought up the point of using 'manifestation' rather than '(re)incarnation', but with less wording. --Bentonia School 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Words such as carnation, reincarnation, manifestation, rebirths, etc, used by Bentonia School and others are empty words until they are given precise meanings or definitions. Since Tangerine is interested in improving the article, then surely according to Wiki's NPOV policy, it has to be clearly stated in the article that dalai is believed to be a reincarnation/ manifestation of whichever buddha, but there is no evidence for any of this as dalai is biologically a human, indistinguishable from other humans, and was born through human parentage. Furthermore in order to comply with the NPOV policy, since it is believed that he is a reincarnation/ manifestation of the Buddha of Compassion, it should be stated what this compassion actually is/was. Is he any more compassionate than say, everybody's grandmothers? Is he more compassionate than say, Bill and Melissa Gates or any of the US philanthropists past and present? It also has to clarify that such titles were human creations and were not meant to be taken literally. Other questions to be clarified are if there is this line of manifestation, then why was it only manifested over a thousand years after the Buddha died; in a manifestation, is a buddha trapped in a human body, and therefore could not exist anywhere else for that time? 81.157.100.44 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for anything regarding belief or theory. Your argument, as obviously closed minded as it is, can be used to negate everything that humans have developed. Use it to negate the theory of relativity and all its possibilities. There is no mentioning in the article, nor in any of the posts here, that indicate that what is believed by Tibetans is absolute truth. All state that it is a system of belief. It should be, out of moral and respectful obligation, be viewed as such. Your arguments would be far more welcomed and far better received if they were not swollen with racism and disdain for Tibet. Everything you say continues to be a shell of intellectual speak covering a profound ingnorance. And I see you still don't sign your posts. How interesting. --Bentonia School 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I see Bentonia School is still using a phoney name. How interesting. 81.155.100.190 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting that since I have an account and post under an ID that allows any wiki user to contact me directly via my personal page that it is no different from 81.155.100.190, which allows no direct contact with you? Still quick with those razor sharp ideas of yours, I see. --Bentonia School 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Still like using a phoney name. A Freudian slip perhaps? 81.155.100.190 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And still trolling. Freudian slip? That makes absolutley no sense. I can be contacted by any wiki user at any time regarding anything. That makes me a substantial user and as real as a individual gets on Misplaced Pages. Not having a profile and therefore no username instantly qualifies any and all of your remarks - positive or negative - as insubstantial. They just float around and make to contribution to anything whatsoever. Furthermore, since we're no longer talking about the Dalai Lama, a topic of which, even with a username, you could have made little contribution to given your obvious yet unfounded disregard for the Tibetan tradition, there will be no more correspondences with you as long as you prefer to float around in your meaningless trolling state. --Bentonia School 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"The same could be said for anything regarding belief or theory." - No!!! A 'theory' can be tested, and if found to be true in tests, then it is known as a theory, otherwise it is known as a hypothesis. 81.157.100.44 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On Including a Mention of Reincarnation If the question is whether to include the mention of the fact that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, then I suggest it stay in, since the article is about a Tibetan leader and this is what Tibetans believe and it is his official position. It's not really relevant whether others believe in reincarnation, or whether it's "real". And to the anonymous commenter, I don't believe anyone who believes in reincarnation thinks that those people are born in some supernatural, non-human way... or that they are physically different. There is even belief among Buddhists that there isn't even a soul which gets 'reborn'. It is more the intent, the will, or, let's call it the spirit of the person who gets reborn. And it doesn't just apply to important figures, but also many regular practicing Buddhists believe in re-incarnation. Eeve 14:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

'there isn't even a soul which gets 'reborn, and 'let's call it the spirit of the person who gets reborn'. What are you calling a 'soul' and what are you calling a 'spirit'? 81.157.100.44 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Eeve, could we please have your explanation? 81.155.100.190 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the reference for comments made by the 14th Lama concerning future incarnations of the Lama. I feel that the "Government of Tibet in Exile" is not the best source in this instance, as the page it links to quotes the Indian Express which is itself quoting Time Magazine. Since the Time Magazine interview with the 14th Lama seems to be the source of the quotes, I redirected the footnote link. Legatissimo 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Buddha didn't say he was going to be reborn/ reincarnated/ manifest into another body. I might be wrong but I thought the buddhist belief was that once you achieve/reach the buddha state, you were free of rebirths, and the pains and suffering associated with the life cycles. But then buddhism and lamaism are 2 different religions. 86.161.56.69 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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—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—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.—Nat Krause 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.—Nat Krause 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)

"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—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.—Nat Krause 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)

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/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.—Nat Krause 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: