Comments:Dalai Lama's representative talks about China, Tibet, Shugden and the next Dalai Lama

Latest comment: 15 years ago by in topic Let's hear from the subject, not the interviewer

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Wow! edit

I feel a complete ignorant; I didn't know there were "Bhuddist Ambassadors" or whatever... Anyway, great interview! Very much to the point, and when they talk about lying, homosexuality and killing insects (lol), it seemed to me that Bhuddism seems a pretty comprehensive religion... Not as Christianity or Islam -.-. Anyway, great interview! Seems as though China has a lot to learn from the Dalai Lama. - Jurock (reply) 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Buddhism' and 'Tibetan Buddhism' are two different religions in the same way Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are two different religions. Tibetans do kill insects and yaks, as Tibetans (including the DL) eat meat. The DL explained that he had given great thought to the killing of animals for food; it is better to kill one big animal such as a yak or a cow than to kill lots of little animals such as chickens. The point being that each one animal has one 'soul'/'carnation' each. So those who eat shrimps- watch out!!!! 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification and thanks edit

I submitted the question that prompted this exchange:

DS: Do you know why the Dalai Lama has not explicitly said he is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama?

TS: In the broader sense, it is a manifestation, so you can manifest in different ways. He is talking in that sense. It’s a broad principle argument.

DS: It’s that he believes he is a reincarnation, but whether he is the whole and sum of the 13th Dalai Lama is another question?

TS: Yes. Yes. Something to that effect.

Can anyone clarify this for me? Thanks a lot to David for incorporating my question and to anyone who can explain what this means... Koavf 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what TW is saying is that the whole Buddhist idea of the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is not as simple as his soul leaving the body of the 13th Dalai Lama and popping in to the new born body of the 14th. From what I understand it's more of an embodiment of the Dalai Lama's ideals and a spiritual torch-bearer than a case of 'same person - different body'. Kinda like the idea of the Catholic Trinity; ie. Jesus died and returned as the Holy Ghost which is one and the same as Jesus and God; rather than 'man dies and comes back'. I also got the feeling that it's a more complicated belief than TW wanted to approach in a single interview. Shane.Bell 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Evil Empire edit

I wonder if the PRC will grumble it's 'disapproval' of Wikinews over interacting with the Dalai Lama like it does everytime a government official meets with him :)

Even though I don't quite approve of the cult of celebrity that has become attached to the Dalai Lama, I think this interview is a milestone in the development of Wikinews as a serious organisation. Maybe next time we can talk to the Dalai Lama himself. Shane.Bell 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planning to get to speak to the Dalai Lama is going to be tricky. His schedule is set so far in advance. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, Brian. And with his recent 'retirement' this may get worse... or maybe he'll have more time to talk to people; who knows. I believe it will happen though :) Shane.Bell 12:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, reader's digest got him, and he talked about his favourite TV shows. I'm sure we could at least get 10 minutes with him, if nothing else. -- Zanimum 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does this always end up China-bashing and Chinese-bashing? After the DL met Pope John Paul II, his Holiness the Pope issued a statement warning people not to be seduced by those eastern beliefs. His Holiness the DL then replied by saying that he understood and that Tibetan Buddhism is not for everybody. China recognises the DL whereas the billion or so Roman Catholics do not. So why not have a go at the Vatican? 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Tashi Wangdi's comments on the Karmapa issue edit

Tashi Wangdi's answers regarding the Karmapa issue are disappointing.

DS: What is the reason for the Dalai Lama's decision to become involved in the dispute over the identity of the current Karmapa [the leader of the largest sub-school of one of the four main schools in Tibetan Buddhism - ed.] by endorsing one candidate?

TW:' There was no special decision. His Holiness was approached.

This doesn't really answer the question. When the Dalai Lama was approached by someone to weigh in on the matter, he made a decision to go ahead and get involved. This might by itself be an innocuous decision if there was no controversy at the time (although it's not clear to me that he did any checking first to see if there was a controversy). However, later, when it became clear that there was a controversy, the decision was made to continue taking sides.

DS: By all sides?

TW: Yes. And then later on there was unfortunately some disagreement. Even Shamarpa—who had disagreements with the other regents at that time—even he did not dispute His Holiness’ decision as to who should be the throne holder. There should be no dispute.

This is not true. Or, at least, it's the first the time I've heard someone assert this. Going by the account of Mick Brown, an English journalist who is highly sympathetic to Ogyen Trinley Dorje and the Dalai Lama (which agrees with this timeline from Ogyen Trinley's website), there were actually two instances, a few weeks apart, when the Dalai Lama confirmed Ogyen Trinley as the Karmapa. The first occurred on June 9, 1992: Tai Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoche telephoned the Dalai Lama in Brazil to tell him they had found the Karmapa, and the Dalai Lama replied by issuing a letter giving his preliminary approval. The Shamarpa was not available for comment at that point (he had returned from a lengthy trip to the United States at almost exactly the same time). Three weeks later, on June 30, the Dalai Lama issued a formal statement of approval. The day before, he had met with the Shamarpa who had pleaded with him not to go ahead with it. Now, he may have had good reasons for rejecting the Shamarpa's argument, but in neither case was the Dalai Lama actually approached by all sides to give the approval.

It is true that, in between these two events, the Shamarpa did issue a letter in which he went along with the recognition, apparently at the urging of one of his teachers. He seems to have changed his mind almost immediately.

DS: Does he still play a role as a peacemaker?

TW: No, there’s no need. It’s accepted by the vast majority of that tradition.

I don't think this is a very healthy attitude at all. It is apparently the case that the majority of Karma Kagyu has sided with Ogyen Trinley Dorje. But, the implication here is that the other side is insignificant, which is not the case at all. The other candidate is supported by the highest-ranking religious figure in Karma Kagyu (besides the Karmapa himself) and apparently by a majority of the monks at the Karmapa's home monastery, Rumtek. This is highly significant in terms of recognising reincarnate lamas. The other candidate is also very likely supported by the majority of Karma Kagyu groups in Europe. So, the idea that there's nothing here to resolve seems counterproductive.

DS: Do you think Ogyen Trinley Dorje [one of the two contestants in the Karmapa dispute - ed.] will be able to travel freely to visit his followers?

TW: He’s traveling freely. Under the circumstances he escaped from Tibet there are security concerns about his personal safety. The government of India has to make sure he is not personally harmed, so in that sense there are some security restrictions. But as far as movement is concerned in India he can travel anywhere in India. There’s no ban on his movement.

"He's travelling freely" again seems to sidestep the question. When will he be able to travel internationally? Surely, the Dalai Lama himself has just as many security concerns, if not more. But, he is able to travel widely. The "some security restrictions" Tashi Wangdi refers to: is the Dalai Lama under the same restrictions?—Nat Krause 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note of correction here to what Nat has said above: I think most all of your questions and statements are valid, but it is worth noting that the monks currently at Rumtek do not support Thaye Dorje. The previous (and some would say, rightful) inhabitants of Rumtek, comprised of the 16th Karmapa's monks and labrang, were violently expelled in the early 1990's by other men in robes, some of whom claimed to be monks but were subsequently recognized by members of the Bhutanese police-force as various petty criminals apparently exported into Sikkim for just such a violent expulsion. In those days the 16th Karmapa's monks had not even taken a side yet, but just wanted to continue about their duties until the higher lamas resolved their dispute and the true Karmapa could come to reside there. Many of them ended up living as virtual refugees on Shamar's property in Sikkim and have over the years tended to become supporters of Thaye Dorje. The monks currently inhabiting Rumtek appear to still be a somewhat disorganized group of supporters of Gyaltsab Rinpoche and Tai Situ. -- 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite right. I definitely meant the original community of monks, the ones who lived there before the takeover.—Nat Krause - (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's hear from the subject, not the interviewer edit

The interviewer did a nice job, but went a little too far on the Gyancain Norbu questions. While it would seem that Norbu is a victim too, an interviewer shouldn't put words in the subject's mouth. Leading questions should be avoided in journalism. Short open ended simple questions should be used to allow the subject to tell their story in their own words.

I am a person with a disability and I am 35 years old and living on my own for five years this Sept 2008 thanks for your help dalai lama from Brita —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]