Jump to content

Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Bodyguards

I heard up until the 20th century the various Dalai Lamas had a team of martial artist bodyguards that were actually bred specifically for the task. Does this have some truth or is it a myth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exander (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

There were a group of monastic police/security guards called dhob dhob. They typically were the largest monks and they even wore padding under their robes to enhance the appearance of their bulk. They protected the Dalai Lama and Lhasa in general (there is a scene in Seven Years in Tibet where there are four dhob dhob guarding the main gate into Lhasa). They were "warrior monks" in the loosest sense of the term, but they likely were not like the Shaolin monks. As far as being bred for the job, I don't know about that, it sounds suspect, but they were required to take the vows of the vinayasutra, that is, the disciplines of a monk. --Bentonia School 09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(Just as an interesting note,) The Dalai Lama still has a team of body guards trained in martial arts. I had the chance to briefly meet his former bodyguard, Wangda, at my school through a project organised by a teacher. Despite his age, he still looked like a guy you wouldn't mess with. And he managed to look like a sage at the same time --Dandin1 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. A great experience, I'm sure. I would suppose that the Dalai Lama's bodyguards are still the dhob dhob and that they likely follow the same routines they did in times past. --Bentonia School 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the institution of dhob dhobs were abolished in Old Tibet by an abbot of Sera monastery. They weren't really monks and they murdered a previous abbot for supporting one regent over another during the intermediate years between the 13th and the 14th Dalai Lama. It got too political. If you haven't noticed, HHDL's body guards are those professional looking ones with the suits and sunglasses. Either them or Western martial arts experts. Jmlee369 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, are you suggesting that the dhob dhob didn't take the vows of the vinayasutra? --Bentonia School 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They probably received the vows but probably didn't keep them too well. They didn't study at the monasteries and reluctantly participated in the pujas. Also, they were known to grow a plait of hair as long as they could. Jmlee369 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Can you recommend a book that illustrates all this info? Thanks for sharing, by the way. --Bentonia School 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this book about a former dob dob recounting his experiences. I forget what it was called though.Jmlee369 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'll see if I can dig it up anywhere. Thanks. --Bentonia School 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dobdob (in Tibetan: ལྡོབ་ལྡོབ། or དོབ་དོབ།) were a caste of monks, not just guards of the Dalai Lama. They didn't follow monastic vows (to put it politely), they protected the monasteries and terrorised the population. There are many references to them in books on Tibet, e.g. in Melvyn C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951, p. 89f., 424ff. etc. and in Alexandra David Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, p. 109f.
Tashi Tsering describes in his autobiography, The Struggle for Modern Tibet, how young boys in Lhasa feared the dobdob because they sexually abused children; his experiences are quite horrific. Geoffrey Samuel writes in Civilized Shamans that 10 to 15 per cent of the monks in the great Gêlug monasteries around Lhasa were dobdob. Just one of the facts the propaganda pap of the exiles doesn't mention and their Western followers usually are not aware of.
Sorry for this deviation, this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with the article. —Babelfisch 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's all good - that's why it's in the discussion page and not in the article. --Bentonia School 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Dalai Lama → (Not this article, but the individual Dalai Lama articles) — Each article presently is int he form of Firstname Lastname, Xth Dalai Lama. I am suggesting for consistency with other articles and to conform to naming conventions that the "Xth Dalai Lama" portion be cut. For instance, see John Paul II, rather than John Paul II, 256th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose The title "Dalai Lama" should be included in the article title; this is how they are known. Noel S McFerran 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose How many names of individual Dalai Lamas can most people name? When searching for information on, say, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, who is going to know what his name was if they are new to the subject? Most people don't even know the name of the current Dalai Lama. Articles should be accessed simply, not in a scholarly form to please those who know all there is to know about the Dalai Lama. What service would that provide? Wikipedia is a resource for all people, not for those who already know all about said topic. --Bentonia School 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Nat Krause; most Western books, including those in English, say 5th or 14th Dalai Lama; we should move there, if anywhere. Bentonia School's questions remain unanswered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I oppose this because this article gives (or should give) details about the Dalai Lama(s) in general, and each separate page about each Dalai Lama give info about each individual Dalai Lama. eg.
Dalai Lama: The dalai lama is...
Dalai Lama the Xth: This Dalai Lama was born on ...
Thanks, Stwalkerster talk review 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay The pages should give this information, but why in the title? The pages should also list when they were born, but pages shouldn't be title "Firsname Lastname, Xth Dalai Lama, born in XXXX." And why are they titled, for instance, "Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama" instead of "Tenzin Gyatso, Fourteenth Dalai Lama?" I have no objection to the title "Dalai Lama" in the name per se, but the arbitrary fashion in which it has been added. What about "Tenzin Gyatso, Dalai Lama" or "Tenzin Gyatso (Dalai Lama)"? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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, [that] 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(Talk!·What have I done?) 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalai_Lama/Archive_3&oldid=1142757691"