Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Is Dalai Lama viable？

He has not done anything like Mother Theresa nor Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi in India despite he exiled there fore many decades. He take first class plane and resides in five star hotel traveling to collect donations; Except during China revolution, Tibet was never exploited. If China let him go back as a penniless monk in Tibet, would he go? or retire as billionaires in India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukitai456 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is viable in the West because a religious organisation (whatever this means)can be registered as a charity, and charities in most western countries pay little or no taxes, so they can accumulate vast amount of wealth. Examples of this occurring include The Roman Catholic Church, The Scientologists, The Aga Khan and so on. If taxation of religious organisations were treated like banks, where a new worldwide bank tax is proposed, or even like corporate companies or individuals, then the need to be more competitive in order to be viable would be introduced. 86.185.176.157 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics

The article's current use of "His Holiness" to refer to the Dalai Lama needs to be changed to be consistent with wikipedia's guidelines for the use of honorifics.

"Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)."

I have replaced all honorifics with more neutral terms.

NZUlysses (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Western propaganda

I created this subject because we do see propoganda everywhere in the world, including the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird, is this why your IP address shows that you're from the West? Is there also a reason why you don't mention Eastern propaganda, such as the fact that Wikileaks is blocked in the PRC? I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that its because of comments like these that make Westerners so distrustful of Easterners. Sauuce (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though I have less than full respect for Tenzin Gyatso (due to his political activities), such an addition would incite reprisal from the pro-independence camp and add a "Chinese propaganda" section. This should be strictly on the history of all 14 Dalai Lamas, and unless there has been pro-HHDL propaganda (foreign) and anti-HHDL (various Chinese gov'ts) for most of the holy leaders, a bad idea. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already a "Chinese propaganda" section at the beginning of the discussions. Any reasonably independent person can see that it is the work of lama propagandists. 86.181.66.187 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that reason and balance are of immense importance. I believe that it is possible to write an article devoid of any propaganda, to write an article that is respectful and yet cognizant of the political situation. Regarding China's invasion of Tibet... it is impossible to call this a "good thing." This inability does not, I think, constitute propaganda. Gingermint (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"lama" propagandists dont exist. "pro-indepedence" maybe, but lamas are furry animal. which, to my knowledge, live in south america. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The furry animals you are referring to is actually the llama (a relative of the camel), and not lama. Lama propagandists and pro-independence are not necessary the same set of people. 86.162.139.230 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

15th Dalai Lama?

As far as I understand, to become the next Dalai Lama you have to be born after the previous one has died. That's why Tenzin Gyatso has been the Dalai Lama since before World War II, outlasting the careers of pretty much every official head of state in the world. So will there be a 15th Dalai Lama? I assume it's up for the Tibetans to decide, is this correct? Anyway as Tenzin Gyatso seems pretty healthy I don't think we'll have a new Dalai Lama before 2020 or so. JIP | Talk 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created an article space for the 15th Dalai Lama. I realize this position may not be filled for some time, but there is enough speculation and discussion in the news about the 15th Dalai Lama so I felt that it was appropriate to start a new article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of information before he left Tibet

There is nothing said in this article about how the 14th Dalai Lama took part in the Chinese Revolution, he signed agreements and was active during the first years of the Revolution. Then he betrayed the Revolution and left to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.209.92.161 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about the current Dalai Lama specifically. It covers the biographies of each of the Dalai Lamas only in very abbreviated fashion. The topics you are asking about are covered in the article on the 14th Dalai Lama (I think it could stand to have more detail added).—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dalai does not actually mean ocean

The Mongolian word dalai did not mean ocean. In present day Beijing, which was the Mongolian Chinese Yuan capital, around the imperial palaces the Yuan emperors constructed "hai"s (ie seas, oceans), such as Hou-Hai (back sea/ocean), the present day Zhongnan-Hai, etc. Da-hai means great sea or ocean, which became the Mongolian word dalai. A dalai in Mongolian is just a large body of water, ie a lake, but in Han Chinese the Mongolians called a lake a sea. Neither Mongolians nor Tibetans in the 13 century CE knew what an ocean (as defined today, ie Atlantic, Pacific, Indian etc) was, as they lived in landlocked habitats miles from the nearest ocean. Thus Dalai Lama should be properly translated as "The Great Lake Teacher". 86.178.74.10 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Please provide academic sources that state this.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the term "academic" in English carries a sense of uselessness? 86.178.72.144 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with you - but I think you are underestimating the knowledge educated Tibetans had about the world in the 13th century. I agree that ordinary people might not have known about "oceans" - but educated monks were well acquainted with both Indian and Chinese literature which both had ancient traditions that the continents were surrounded by large oceans (which were usually thought of as joining each other as, in fact, they do). In Indian literature, and Indian Buddhist literature in particular, there were lots of references to "oceans" - so I cannot accept that educated Tibetans had no concept of oceans. The Indians naturally knew of the Indian Ocean and the Chinese, of course, were well aware of the Pacific Ocean and their historical literature shows that they also knew of a "Northern Ocean" as well at least a couple of thousand years ago. There is often confusion in languages between the terms for oceans, seas and large lakes - and it is often very arbitrary when a particular body of water is referred to as one or the other. Think of the "Caspian Sea" in English, for example, which is really just a very large lake, and compare it with the "Arabian Sea" and the "Indian Ocean." It might be of interest to mention here that when the Greeks and Romans referred to the "Erythraean Sea" (literally "Red Sea") they meant all the water between Egypt and India, including our "Persian Gulf." So, please remain aware that terms like "dalai" and Chinese "hai" can quite reasonably be translated in different ways. Respectfully, John Hill (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole point is the word Dalai is Mongolian and not Tibetan. The Mongolians of the time called a lake a sea. Dalai is therefore a large lake not an ocean. Tibetans reading about an ocean in Indian literature is not the same as actually understanding what an ocean is. You can read the English word universe, but it does not mean that you actually know what it is. 86.178.72.144 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, this is a pointless argument. If you will please look at the main page you will see that the current Dalai Lama claims the Mongolian term "Dalai" was a translation of the Tibetan "Gyatso' which means "ocean." Moreover, would not educated Mongolian monks have read the same texts as Tibetan monks referring to "oceans"? So why should Tibetans but not Mongolians have a concept of what oceans are like? Finally, it is silly to argue about understanding what an ocean or a universe is, and how they may be understood. With our limited facilities it is probable that none us know the true nature of any thing. This does not mean that we cannot have a concept of the universe - we don't commonly confuse the "universe" with a planet, a solar system or even a galaxy. Similarly, a person living on a flat coral island might well gain a concept of a "mountain" without ever seeing one (just putting together what they have learned about the qualities of mountains). So, why do you insist that Mongolians could have had not concept of "oceans" - especially when they would have run across references to them in Indian, Chinese and Tibetan literature? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But the term dalai was not conjured up by an educated Mongolian monk, but by a Khan. Could you say people such as Ghengis Khan was educated? The Khans were educated in the art of warfare (and that was through practice rather than at military colleges such as West Point or Sandhurst) maybe, and not much else. The Mongolian khans were very successful for a time, but they have never been described as educated. And don't forget the word is Mongolian and not Tibetan, so to an ordinary Tibetan dalai did not mean a large body of water be it a lake or a sea, but was simply a couple of sounds occurring together which did not mean anything in their local language. It is like the use of the name T. rex in English, unless a person knew rex is king in Latin, rex is just a sound (and also a boy's name). Calling it T. king would not be the same, and would not carry the same sense of mystery. And don't forget even the present dalai lama has said that the term dalai lama does not translate to an ocean of wisdom, which western propagandists continue to use. It is very important to get fact right before making arguments, because as John knows the world's fights and wars were due to the insistance and believes that somethings long ago (or not so long ago)were correct, when in fact they were nothing but lies. 86.176.185.79 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could go on arguing this point ad infinitum - but what the present Dalai Lama said was that "Dalai" was a translation of the Tibetan name "Gyatso" which means "ocean." On what grounds can we go against his clear statement? And furthermore, the Khan probably had well educated advisors and monks in his court who could easily have translated and explained such a term. Also, this matter of people not knowing about oceans because they lived a long way from the water is really not convincing to me. This is just conjecture - no more. I worked for many years among the Aborigines of Central Australia and their ancient Dreaming stories made it very clear that the land they lived on (i.e. Australia) was surrounded by a "big water" (i.e. an "ocean") - and all young men (at least - and quite possibly women too) would have had this concept of living on land surrounded by huge waters taught to them as they were growing up. If Australian Aborigines from Central Australia had such knowledge, why shouldn't a Mongol Khan - especially one who most probably had educated people in his court, well aware of Indian, Tibetan and Chinese literature? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for further discussion on this point unless anonymous comes up with some reliable sources that support his claims. Otherwise, it's just us making guesses. I am aware of no evidence whatsoever that Mongolian dalay is a loanword from Chinese dàhǎi, nor any reason to expect that the [h] would have [l] as a reflex, which seems linguistically unusual.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pandat and John, I suggest you watch the following:

http://english.cntv.cn/program/learnchinese/20110106/103763.shtml Hopefully Pandat you will realise you are the one who is making guesses. It is so easy to check things out for yourselves nowadays, I just don't understand why you need to ask others. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the dalai lama is called the dalai lama and not the gyatso lama, nor was the title gyatso lama used before he was given the Mongolian title; unless you know otherwise. Therefore it still remains a Mongolian title and not a Tibetan title. Therefore the meaning in Mongolian of the time should be used. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not take a beginners' TV program on the Chinese spoken language as a reliable source. For just one example, the clip you suggested we watch says that the word 海 (pinyin: hai) for 'lake' came into use from Mongolian in the Yuan dynasty. This is just nonsense. The word 海 was being used for "lake" in Chinese at least as early as the Eastern (Later) Han dynasty as you can check in my book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome, which contains the original text and an English translation of the Chapter on the Western Regions from the Hou Hanshu (variously given as chap. 88 or 118 in different editions). Check out, for example, p. 6 (with English translation on p. 7) of my book - and there are a number of other uses of 'hai' as 'lake' in this text as well, and many others in other historical texts from this period.

So, we get back to either your literal translation of 'Great Lake Teacher' or, as the Dalai Lama claims, 'Ocean Lama (Teacher).' What does it matter? The clear (at least to me) meaning is that of a Great (or Extensive) Teacher - thus implying an unusually great or wise teacher.

Finally, I just noticed above that you replied to User:pandatshang's request to give "academic sources" by asking: "Doesn't the term "academic" in English carries a sense of uselessness?". No, you are wrong here: "academic sources" refers to sources written by academics (i.e. professors and people with advanced degrees) and usually implies generally reliable, peer-reviewed sources, rather than generally less reliable sources such as the beginners' TV program you have steered us to. I think you have confused "academic sources" with the common English slang expression that some point is "academic," which is used to imply that the point is not that important (that is, in common life and, thus probably only of interst to academics). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

John, do you agree or not agree that dalai means a large body of water, and in this case a lake and not an ocean? I hope you will not backtrack, as you have already stated "lakes" were called "seas" in by Han and Mongolian peoples. Whether the source comes from an English teaching programme or a research paper from Oxford is irrelevant, as this fact is in the TV programme because it is so well known by local people already. An example is that I am sure you can quote E= MC2, the original source being Einstein, but just because we cannot expect you to prove it does not make E=MC2 untrue. Your use of Australian Aboriginal beliefs is totally irrelevant. The Australians and Tibetans are two completely unrelated peoples culturally; Australia is surrounded on all sides by water, the Tibetan area and Mongolian areas are not.

As you and Pandat are so keen on academic sources, please show us academic sources, which have been peer reviewed, that definitively state dalai lama means an ocean of wisdom. Eastern people are very modest, and nobody would be so presumptious as to think his wisdom is as vast as an ocean (as defined by an ocean nowadays). Even the emperors realised sooner or later the English saying "Pride comes before a fall". As to relying on academics and professors/ teachers; Aristotle was once thought of as great. He may have been a great thinker, but it did not mean his thoughts were correct, and indeed it took 2000 years to put his thinkings in their place. Even Newton and Einstein were wrong on many things. So can we rely on the thoughts of so called academics? 86.182.38.117 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, what article are you reading? This article doesn't say that Dalai Lama means "ocean of wisdom". In fact, it quotes the Dalai Lama himself saying that this is a mistranslation. The article does say that the Mongolian word dalay means "ocean", which can be verified by anyone with a Mongolian-English dictionary. Perhaps it should say "Далай 'Dalai' meaning 'Ocean' or 'Sea'" because I think it's true that Далай doesn't just mean an ocean in the modern sense. Ideally, we would find a citation from an expert source on how the term was used in Mongolian in the 16th century, but since the modern meaning is clear, it has a widely-accepted gloss, and this fact is not very important either way, I don't think we should exclude this information on that basis. As for your other claims (that medieval Tibetans and Mongols didn't know what an ocean was and that Mongolian dalay is a loanword from Chinese dàhǎi) these are facts that you want to add to Wikipedia, and it is your responsibility to find reliable sources for them.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did these Dalai Lamas die so young?

Why did the 9th to 12th Dalai Lamas die so young? The 9th Dalai Lama died in his childhood, the next three in their adolescence. Why did this happen? Was it simply an accident, or does it have something to do with the fact that a new Dalai Lama can only be born after the previous one has died? JIP | Talk 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Infant mortality was very high in those times, and that included in western countries of the time. In the west, even princes and infant kings could die and some had died in infancy or at a young age. The same was true in Japan and China. The same was true with Dalai Lamas who were just human beings with no extraordinary powers over the fate of their own life or death. 86.177.126.72 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Role as head of state

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Dalai Lama has been the head of state of Tibet since the 4th Dalai Lama, with the 14th leading the government in exile until recently. there should be more info on this 71.194.44.209 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You are probably wrong. If you read the article the dalai lamas were not mentioned as head of any state, but were spiritual heads. What is called the "government in exile" is always written in quotation marks, meaning that it is not really a government at all. 86.180.48.26 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was a sovereign state or a subnational entity, the Dalai Lamas were indeed the head of state of Tibet from the 5th Dalai Lama (not the 4th) until the the current 14th Dalai Lama (whose effective rule of Tibet ended in the 1950s and whose nominal rôle as exile head of state ended in 2011). Many of the Dalai Lamas in between were basically figureheads, and the 5th Dalai Lama himself initially was part of complicated triumvirate with Güshi Khan and Sonam Rapten, but they definitely had a political rôle—at least a symbolic one. Tibetans often referred to the "joint political-religious system".—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What the Dalai Lama is not

A section should be added to clarify what the Dalai Lama is not. For example, the dl is not a king or a secular leader. 86.178.73.141 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to User:86.182.38.117

I was just writing this final note when Greg added his excellent note above:

To answer your first question - no, I do not "agree that dalai means a large body of water, and in this case a lake and not an ocean?." I am no expert on Mongolian, but 'dahai' in Chinese (as far back as the Han Dynasty at least) was used to refer to "oceans" such as the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean and even the Mediterranean Sea. The difference between a big sea and an ocean in both English and Chinese is very hard to define. But 'dahai' would not have been used to refer to a lake (unless, perhaps, it was unusually vast, like, perhaps, the Caspian Sea (note that in English this large, salt lake is actually named a "sea".)

As to your second point about whether information comes from a teaching program or a research paper from Oxford does nothing to answer my statement that the Chinese word 'hai' was in use at least as far back as the Han dynasty - it was not introduced during the Yuan dynasty as your video program claimed. This has nothing to do with what any number of "local people" think they "know" - the fact is "hai" is used in many, many Chinese documents which predate the Yuan Dynasty by many centuries. This proves the video is NOT a reliable source on the derivation of these terms.

My reference to the knowledge of Aboriginal people in Australia is not at all irrelevant. It shows that a generally isolated people who live far from an ocean and have never seen one, still can know about and have a concept of what an "ocean" or a "great sea" is. Now, one might expect that the Mongolians, with their many contacts with literate peoples, must have had some concept of "ocean." Certainly, by the time Mongolians began training as Buddhist priests they would have learnt about "oceans" - which play a big part in Buddhist (and Chinese) cosmography. Please do not make the mistake that Mongolians were all just simple nomads with a very limited view of the world. If that was the case, why did Genghis and other Mongolian leaders surround themselves with learned people from all the cultures they came in contact with and encourage debates between them?

Just see how the white australian government treated Chinese people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14276280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.116.67 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I have never claimed that 'Dalai Lama' should be translated as "Ocean of Wisdom," and neither does the present Dalai Lama. If you read what I wrote in my last note you will see that I suggested instead: "Great (or Extensive) Teacher - thus implying an unusually great or wise teacher." Now, please, I do not have time for more of this very prolonged exchange. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But John, you were citing from your own book as reference and you claimed academic means professors with advance degrees etc. Your profile states that you have a nursing degree and even that was from long ago, so how can we accept your book as a reliable source of reference, or do you have advance degrees that you have not told us about? The Chinese TV programme did not state that the use of sea for lake began with the Mongolians, it said that was what Mongolians called a lake back in the Yuan times, which you have already agreed on. I never said Tibetans and Mongolians did not have the concepts of a sea, having a concept and knowing what something is are two completely different things. The fact is, as pointed out by the article many writers still think dalai lama is translatable to an ocean of wisdom, which even the current dalai lama said is incorrect. Why do these people continue to do so, could it be because in times past they were encouraged to do so by tibetan lamas, but now the dalai lama is unable to rein back this mis-translation or even misconception? As the present dalai lama said, gyatso is like a name. In fact it is a name in accordance with many other East Asian practices, for example the Korean Kim for gold, which is also a Chinese name, as well as an English name (used by many Jews). Other names with the same meaning in both Sinitic and English names include Green, King, Swift (the bird), Field, Plum, Bell, Ford, and Wood to name but a few. And yes, there's even a Billy Ocean. Gyatso is just a name and not a metaphor for vastness. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

John your suggestion that Dalai Lama is translatable to: "Great (or Extensive) Teacher - thus implying an unusually great or wise teacher" is rejected.

In many cultures, which include the Far East and France, names and professional work titles are linked, for example you would address an engineer in French as Engineer Smith, or a lawyer, Lawyer Smith, an account Accountant Smith; although you do not do this English, you do have titles such as General Smith. The same is true for Far Eastern cultures, except the word order is reversed, ie Smith Lawyer, Smith Accountant, etc. Dalai Lama is simply Lama Sea, where Sea is a name, as the current holder of the title had confirmed. Any subjective interpretation by people like John is incorrect. If you read the writing of the current DL, you will know that he said the word lama corresponds precisely to the Indian word guru. Lama also corresponds to the more familiar Jewish title Rabbi, also meaning a teacher. Therefore in the English word order convention Dalai Lama is also Rabbi Dalai (ie a reversal of word order). One would not translate Rabbi Goldberg as the Rabbi who is as rich as a mountain of gold as the name Goldberg would suggest; so there is no implication that the word Dalai/Gyatso implies great or extensive wisdom. John, if you are a follower of the DL, you should accept what he tells you about his name instead of fabricating meanings for it. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above First of all, I quoted not so much from my book as from the text within it (it includes the full Chinese text of the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu, plus my translation of it on facing pages). So, it was really from the Hou Hanshu that I was quoting. I might also mention that my book was read and checked in draft form on the internet by many professors and other experts in many different disciplines and from many different countries, and their suggestions to improve it were all taken into account before it was published, and (if I can be excused for boasting a bit) it has received excellent reviews from academics since and has been cited in numerous scholarly works.

By the way, you will find the term 大海 dahai used for "ocean" or "large sea" in the Hou Hanshu (see p. 22 of my book) and several times in the 3rd century Weilüe (of which I have an early draft annotated translation on the Silk Road Seattle website hosted by the University of Washington - but without the Chinese text). I am in the process of tyiding up this work and hope to have it published later this year or early next year (with, of course, the Chinese text included).

Now, we get to the crux of the matter - and that is we basically agree! I also don't think that the title 'Dalai Lama' should be translated as 'Ocean of Wisdom' - it is clearly wrong (unless one thinks the present Dalai Lama doesn't know what he is talking about). Where I disagree with you is that I believe the Mongolians (at least their elites) would have had a good idea of what an "ocean" meant, and you don't agree with me (although the Dalai Lama says they translated the Tibetan word for 'ocean' into their own language). So what? Our disagreement on this issue is of very little importance. And it is completely beside the point as it is of no importance to this article (in which, you may note, no one is advancing the title's translation as the 'Ocean of Wisdon.')

Finally, I think you are stretching the point that just because Dalai was a translation of Gyatso that it did not carry any implication of "greatness" - but if that is what you want to believe - so be it. Your opinion and mine on this matter have no bearing on the article - so, as far as I am concerned there is nothing left to discuss. So, please, let us not waste any more time on this very minor disagreement between us. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Have any Dalai Lamas said that Dalai carried the implication of "greatness" of the teacher (ie Lama)? A great (da) body of water, yes, but nothing else. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article itself you will notice that Laird describes: "The full Mongolian title," as "the wonderful Vajradhara, good splendid meritorious ocean," given by Altan Khan." It is would seem that "Dalai Lama" is an abbreviation of this, and thus may be presumed to imply something along these lines. I don't have access to the full title in Mongolian - but achieving the 'state of vajradhara' is synonymous with complete realisation. Make of it what you will. Yours, John Hill (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gyatso is just a name in the Far East, in much the same way as the Japanese names Honda or Toyoda (Toyota) or Oyama (big hill or mountain). Gyatso did not and does not carry any religious or doctrinal significant meaning or dogma, as explained by the present DL, who has stated that Gyatso is just a name. The best way to understand the meaning of Dalai Lama is to translate it into terms familiar to people of the West, and one such translation is Rabbi Sea. Names in both the West and East may have meanings. A rabbi by the name of Wiseman cannot be translated into a very wise teacher. And John it is not within your remit to translate Dalai Lama as the extensive or great teacher (in the same way Rabbi Wiseman cannot be translated into a wise teacher). With no disrespect, your book is not a book of reference and should not be cited as such because as you say you are not an academic with advance degrees to your name. Your book may have good reviews but current laws on defamation are such that it is all but impossible to give a review that is not good without facing legal action. 86.177.126.72 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have been saying. I quoted Laird above who says that the full Mongolian title, given by Altun Khan, reads: "the wonderful Vajradhara, good splendid meritorious ocean". With respect, while 'Rabbi' is a title, 'Wiseman' is a family name, whereas 'Dalai Lama' is used as a title (eg. the "14th Dalai Lama" - one does not talk about the "14th Robert Wiseman"). It has little, if anything, to do with his personal name. Now, the present abbreviated title, 'Dalai Lama,' is made up of two parts - 'Dalai' which is not to be taken as, simply, 'Ocean,' but representing the full title given by Altun Khan, and 'Lama,' a title which means 'Teacher.' 'Dalai' is no longer just a translation of 'Gyatso', but a shortened form of a rather long title. If you can find a better single word in English to represent the meaning of that longer title than 'Great' - please let us all know.

John, nobody is misrepresenting what you said; you appear to misrepresent what you have said yourself. Altun Khan is himself just a mortal human being. The use of fanciful and superlative language is common in the "royals" of every place on earth, and particularly so in the East; just take the titles the North Koreans give to Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jung-Il and now Kim Jong-Un. If Kim is given the title of "The Shining Sun", does it really mean he is/was a shining sun? "Dalai Lama" in English is really "Lama Dalai" or "Teacher Dalai" because the word order used in these two cultures are reversed, or if you want to translate Dalai, the full translation could be "Rabbi Sea", "Rabbi Lake" if you compare it with the more familiar Jewish system. And yes, you can have Rabbi Wiseman the 14th, or Rabbi Cohen the 120th stretching from the time of Moses. There are certainly names in America such as George Hamilton, George Hamilton II, George Hamilton III, George Hamilton IV, and if the 4th begets a son, the name will be passed on, etc. France certainly had a Louis XIV. The naming tradition in the East, stretching from Burma to Japan, means that people take up different names through different stages of their lives. This is very common. And don't forget, the present Dalai Lama was a Dalai Lama since he was a child. His wisdom is acquired by learning and not inborn. So, John nowhere in the shortened or full Mongolian title was conferred a meaning of "Great" or "Greatness". This meaning is simply fabricated by you, and should not be repeated anywhere in Wikipedia. In the same way, one cannot claim that a Japanese going by the name of Master Oyama is a master whose skills in his art is as large as that of a mountain (Oyama means mountain in Japanese).

Secondly, I was pointing out that "Dahai" has been used in Chinese since at least the Han dynasty. This can be easily ascertained by checking the Chinese text (which I quote in my book}. I was not giving my book as a reference as such - just a convenient place where I know the text can be easily checked - though you are welcome to check it elsewhere if you wish.

Thank you John, as you yourself agree that a "lake" in Chinese was referred to as a "sea". This was also true for the Mongolian. Therefore the term "Dalai" was a "sea" or a "lake".

With, as you say, "no disrespect", my book is a work of reference. One does not have to be "an academic with advance degrees" to write a book of reference. That is simply nonsense - anyone can write a book of reference. What is important is if a significant number of people find that it is a useful reference. There are many excellent works of reference which were not written by academics, or were written by academics whose degrees were in completely unrelated fields.

Your book is a source of reference, but you are not yourself a source of reference. You were more of an cataloguer and editor of the information appearing in the book, but you are not a suitably qualified person who can truly interpret the information you have catalogued in the book.

I really dislike being put in the embarassing position of having to "blow my own trumpet," but, as my credibility seems to be under attack here, I must point out that even a quick check on the internet will show that my book is being constantly used as a reference (i.e. it is being referred to, and quoted from) by scores of academics (and others), and I have had numerous letters from well-known academics in the field congratulating me on it, and thanking me for making it available.

But John you are blowing your own trumpet. Your book is a source of reference. Any book can be a source of reference; but as pointed above you are not a source of reference, it is your book that is a source of reference. You were a cataloguer.

Finally, do you really think that unsolicited academics who I have never met would write 5-star reviews of my book just because they are frightened to write negative ones? Wouldn't they have been better off not writing a review at all? Please, don't insult them in this way. I can't stand all this negativity! If you have something that is really new and interesting to say, fine. If not, I will take it this matter is at an end. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

But John, where is this star system? 86.178.73.228 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to contribute to the above discussion, but just on the subject of translation I'd like to say that much of the introductory paragraph comes across as a bit unnecessary in my opinion. It's a very detailed, repetitive discussion of something (translation) that could be covered much more simply and effectively. By my count, for instance, there are five different statements on what the word "lama" means and all are close to being synonymous: guru, teacher, rabbi, Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Reverend. The basic idea that it implies some sort of quasi-religious teacher could surely be written more simply, perhaps even in a single sentence. Other parts are direct repetition - e.g. the point about word order (Lama Dalai) that is stated twice in the space of two sentences.

Overall, I just think this section is derailing the article a little and needs some editing by someone with the necessary expertise. If you didn't know who the Dalai Lama was and you were confronted with this article, the introduction would probably confuse you more than anything else. Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, I don't think your arguments above in favor of your views on the meaning of the phrase dalai lama have been convincing to anybody besides yourself. Please do not keep restoring this material to the article until you have developed consensus for it on talk.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GP, what you think or not think is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. The only function of an encyclpedia is to disseminate true information. Lama means teacher, as does rabbi. Dalai/Gyatso means sea or lake, and as explained by the current dl is a Tibetan name, similar to a European surname. This is hardly surprising as names of this sort occur all over the Far East. It is very wrong for anyone to imply that the name Dalai or "Sea" to mean that the person with this name has some vast amount of knowledge. There are loads of Tibetan people with the name Gyatso. The title and name convention in the Far East is reverse to that used in the west in general. Therefore Dalai Lama is Lama Dalai in English, or compared to more familiar and better known Jewish system, Dalai Lama translates as Rabbi Sea. None of what you so selfishly deleted is incorrect, and therefore must be restored. In terms of consensus, you will never get that. If consensus were crucial then the article would not even exist, as the vast majority of the 7 billion people on Earth do not believe in the dalai lama. GP please do not delete something simply because you disagree with it, that would just demonstrates your prejudices. 86.181.67.222 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that gives the facts you mention and states that they are important and relevant to the Dalai Lamas.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of equity no such citation is required as no reliable source is cited in any of the lead paragraphs of the article. In fact if reliable sources needed to be cited for the current article to exist then you should delete most of the article. Clearly GP, your editing is bias and selective. 86.178.227.155 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia should be cited, but we don't remove material just because it is uncited. We do remove material that is uncited if it is contentious and/or consensus feels that it detracts from the article. So, the beginning part of the lede, (The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" branch of Buddhism. The name is a combination of the Mongolian word dalai meaning "Ocean" and the Tibetan word བླ་མ ་bla-ma (with a silent "b") meaning "teacher". According to the current Dalai Lama, the Tibetan word "lama" corresponds precisely to the better known Indian word "guru".) is partially uncited, but apparently no one except you thinks it is contentious. On the other hand, the material you added afterward is contentious and most editors seem to think the article is better without it, so you should provide a citation.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who added, "According to the current Dalai Lama, the Tibetan word "lama" corresponds precisely to the better known Indian word "guru".)". GP, you appear to be the only one who thinks the part you deleted is contentious. Nobody has disputed that the Tibetan word "lama" is the cognate of the Jewish word "rabbi", which in English corresponds to "teacher", nor that the order of name and title in the Oriental languages is reverse that in the English language, nor that "Dalai" means "sea", nor that according to the current DL that Dalai is the Mongolian translation of the Tibetan name Gyatso. Loads of Tibetans have the name Gyatso. The name carries no implication of the size and dimension of the bearer's wisdom. As the current DL explained, it is just a name, like an English surname. The article would be better and more informative without your biased and POV editing. 86.176.189.247 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't know enough about this to come down on one side of the debate, but I would take issue with this statement: "None of what you so selfishly deleted is incorrect, and therefore must be restored."

Even if the current (long) introduction is technically correct - and I have no reason to say that it isn't because I don't have any expertise in this subject - the introduction is still inadequate as far as I'm concerned. As I said above, there are five different statements on the meaning of the word "Lama" which are all close to synonymous and could almost certainly be covered in a single sentence. I don't dispute whether these statements are correct, what I dispute is whether they're necessary. Articles have to be accurate, but they also have to be concise and readable. Bandanamerchant (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research in the introduction

The present introduction appears to be in a terrible state and makes a lot of very dubious claims. Here are some of them

• 1. The introduction claims that "lama" is a cognate of "rabbi". Given that Tibetan and Hebrew are completely unrelated languages, it seems highly improbable that there are common cognates in the two languages.

• 2. The article goes on to talk about word order in "European" languages. Which languages are these? The word order in English is different from German, both of them are different from French etc.

• 3. The claim that the title should be "Lama Dalai" could be correct, as opposed to the two previous claims, but needs to be sourced.

• 4. For some reason I fail to understand, the article claims that there is such a title as "rabbi sea" in Judaism. I'm not Jewish, but to the best of my knowledge no such term exists.

• 5. The claim that the Dalai Lama should be "correctly addressed" as "The Right Reverend Sea" also appears to be homespun orginal research.

In short, the introduction reads as one of the worst examples of OR I've seen for a long time.Jeppiz (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what research or OR is; you are confusing your own lack of knowledge and careless reading of the article with research. Just because you did not know something and someone else did, does not make the other person's statement original research. Are you dyslexic by any chance?

• 1 Both mean "teacher"
• 2 Word order of Title + Name is same in all 3 languages you mentioned.
• 3 Teacher Sea, cf Mr Sea
• 4 "Sea" is not a title but a name. For example a certain Mr Billy Ocean.
• 5 Article stated "could" and not "should".86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees with you about this, except for the IP editor who added the material. It's just that no one has taken steps to keep him from reverting it back in yet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you done a piece of OR to verify that's what "everyone"agrees with? 86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look at the history and I saw that. I also saw you've been trying to keep this article clean from OR. If the IP vandalises the article again (I cannot call edits of that kind anything but vandalism), I'll suggest it becomes semi-protected.Jeppiz (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To clean the article, then you need to remove it completely. 86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly ignore your ignorance, arrogance, unpoliteness and lack of decency and simply say this: Wikipedia is about sources. You have been vandalizing this article over and over again, against the will of all others. It's not about what I, you or anyone else know, it's about what can be sourced. Provide sources for your claims, or they will be ignored. What is more, stop changing other user's entries here on the talk page. Reply after and entry, not inside it.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I have replied to the many points you made immediately after where you have made them so that it is easier to follow. If you read articles in Wiki, it is an established practice. I have therefore restored what you so arrogantly removed. I have shown what you have written to be false. I have not vandalised this article, I have made clarifications and therefore improvements to it which you see as vandalism. The two views are not equivalent. If you read the above section, it is plainly stated by GP that not all writings without reliable reference are removed, otherwise the whole article will probably have to removed. You clearly come across as someone who suffers from dyslexia as you certainly have not read what was written but what you thought was written. Furthermore your language abilities appear to be very small (as shown by not knowing the word order for title + name are the same in the 3 languages you quoted). If you wish to edit here you really should improve your intellect and communication skills, and further more learn to read. Throwing tantrums like you do and react in a knee-jerk way will only backfire on you in all aspects of your life. 86.176.49.36 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Either you just don't get it or you are deliberately trolling. You keep on deleting or changing my comments here and to go on about me as a person. I am not the issue here, we're discussing edits to an article about Dalai Lama. You seem to think you need to reply to my five points above. You don't. What you have to do is to provide sources for your claims. You have to link to sources that support your claims. You say that you have made "improvements" to the article. All other users feel the opposite, we feel that you are vandalising it. However, that is not the issue here. Even if your claims were all 100% correct, you would still have to provide sources for them. Wikipedia does not care about WP:TRUTH, only about what can be sourced. (Luckily enough, those two coincide in this case). I recommend you to stop your edit warring and personal insults and start editing responsibly. And that means providing external sources.Jeppiz (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, as you have said sorry, you have accepted that you are wrong. Deleting my replies to your points will not help you. Your ability and knowledge has not reached a level where you can edit an encyclopaedia competently. First go and improve yourself. It is not whether if my claims are 100% correct, they are; nobody has put forward any credible claims to the contrary, and your claims have been proved to be false. It is obviously hard for you to accept that you are wrong, and that truth plays a part in Wikipedia, but there is no need for you to vandalise the discussion or the article by removing others' contributions. You only want to use Wikipedia for your own propaganda purposes, and that is not acceptable to a vast number of netizens. This is tantamount to violence in a face-to-face. Jeppiz, please grow up and use this wonderful resource responsibly and sensibly. 86.176.49.36 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted your replies, I have simply moved them to the appropriate place. As for all your other tirades, I repeat what I have said several times already. Provide reliable sources for your claims, otherwise they will not make it into the article. If you continue to troll this page (as it looks as if you're doing, since you refuse to provide any sources and only continue with the same kind of behavior) I will ask that this talk-page become semi-protected as well. The aim here is to discuss how to improve the article, nothing else.Jeppiz (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you simply deleted my replies to your contribution the first time round and it was only moved the second time round after I rightfully restored it. There is no need to provide other references as they are already in the article. Lama = Guru = Teacher = Rabbi. That is simple. Dalai = Ocean = Sea used as a surname and not figuratively as verified by the current dl. Mr Smith (in English) = Herr Smith (in German) = Monsieur Smith (in French), ie same word order of Title + Name. In other word Jeppiz, you don't know what you are talking about, and have been caught out. You are simply someone who is a bully and possibly a dyslexic. In a classroom, you are most likely a person who is told to shut up by a teacher for causing disruption to the class by shouting garbage. Jeppiz, you should grow up and contribute to society in a meaningful way instead of repeating rubbish. 81.159.179.181 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say "references are already in the article." What are the specific references that you are citing for these statements. Please provide quotations.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur fully with Greg Pandatshang. Untill the IP bothers to present any sources for his immaginative interpretations, we won't get any further. For my part, the discussion is over untill sources are presented. This is not a discussion forum, it's a talk page for how to improve an article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dalai Lama: no government in exile!

according to this interview, dalai lama clarify that there is no 'government in exile'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XlgfSgIeI so should the term be drop in the article and only the term CTA be used to match his official stance? Akinkhoo (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only mentioned twice in this article as it is. The first mention should inform readers that it is informally known as the Tibetan government-in-exile, since that is a very common expression.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned at all, let alone twice. 86.176.191.162 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The "threat" of advocating independence?

The last sentence of the History section uses the loaded word "threatened". This is non-neutral and not truly sourced. The reference given does not call the statement about potential policy changes a threat, nor does it attribute the statement to the Dalai Lama himself, but to deputy speaker Dolma Gyari. I can't edit the article myself, for browser-related technical reasons. Would someone please change the sentence to reflect just what was said (and by whom), and leave perceived intentions out of it (unless they can be sourced.) Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it according to what you requested. Helpsome (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. Thank you for your promptness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Čingis Qāghan's name connection with Dalai Lama's

The name "Čingis Qāghan" or " Genghis Khan" basically means "Warrior Lord/King (Genghis= Cenk [meaning war or fight] maker). The word "Cenk" is a common term between old and modern Mongols and Turks (both asian Turkish states and Asia Minor area States like Turkey and Azerbaijan)still just meaning 'war' or 'fight'. So that there is no such connection between the words "Genghis" and "ocean" like shown in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.71.15 (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of lama

'Lama' does not mean chief high priest as stated at the beginning of the article; it means 'guru' or 'teacher' according to the 14th dalai lama. There are lots of lamas ie teachers in Tibet. Lamas are not priests, they are monks; even the 14th dalai lama has not said he wanted to live the life of a priest, he said he wanted to live the life of a simple monk. 86.181.69.177 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. Lama was intended as a translation of the Sanskrit term guru. In practice, it means, "an eminent Tibetan Buddhist teacher".—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify that Greg means "an eminent teacher of Tibetan Buddhism". A lama does not have to be Tibetan, and buddhist teachers from schools other than tibetan buddhism are not known as lamas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19702122 86.181.69.177 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

www.wapgod.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.245.30 (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ive just seen this may need changing

"The eighth, Gyampal Gyatso, died when he was in his thirties" when it clearly states "[Jamphel Gyatso the eighth Dalai Lama (1758–1804)" it makes him 46 not in his thirty's and its spelt differently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.35.196 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex of Dalai Lama and Searching for the reincarnation section

Given the recent comments of the 14th Dalai Lama about the possible identity of the 15th Dalai Lama, should the gender specific terms in the "Searching for the reincarnation" section be re-visited? Kevin McE (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like using the gender-neutral term "child" in place of "boy" is easy enough. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what being a lama is all about.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779257/NBC-cameraman-Ebola-reincarnation-Tibetan-teacher-mother-married-Buddhist-guru-16.html

86.178.172.152 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Manifestation

Is manifestation simply a case of "Dissociative identity disorder"? 81.151.237.102 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Head Monk of the Gelug School

The article states that the Dalai Lama is the head monk for the Gelug School of Buddhism. Isn't this false? I believe the Ganden Tripa is the Head Monk, not the Dalai Lama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.142.139 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?

The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevance to this page - for the Dalai Lama - the question is - are his writings secondary sources that can be used as such for quotes and citations in articles on Buddhism? Robert Walker (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference to be added: China Choosing of Next Dalai Lama

I don't know how to add a citation and I can't figure it out. This article by the Huffington Post seems to indicate that China seeks to control the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama and intends to choose who is that incarnation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matteo-pistono/beijing-and-the-next-dala_b_833278.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whooshing (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

When did the political institution of the Dalai Lamas cease?

The political institution of the Dalai Lama ended in the 1950's. Not 2011. The CTA is not a government.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, VictoriaGrayson, this is interesting. Could you possibly be more precise, please, I mean, at which point in the 1950s do you say that it ended: with the Chinese invasion in 1950, on the Dalai Lama's exile in 1959, or at some other time in between? Thanks again, I am very interested to know about the exact point when you feel he stopped being a political institution and I am willing to learn more from you about this. MacPraughan (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The idea that one needs to be in a government in order to be a political institution is also interesting, VictoriaGrayson. How could opposition parties exist, if that were the case, pray? I hope I did not misinterpret your point of saying "the CTA is not a government" (on which point I totally agree).

Wikipedia defines "politics" (lit. from Greek, 'of, for, or relating to citizens') as "the practice and theory of influencing other people," and it defines an institution as "stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior" which, "as structures or mechanisms of social order, govern the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community." So, one doesn't see much in that as a basis to deny that the 14th Dalai Lama continued to represent the political institution of the Dalai Lamas until he resigned from political activity in 2011, does one? Perhaps you could elucidate a little. MacPraughan (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

what precisely is a Dalai Lama?

To say "The Dalai Lama is a lama of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" school of Tibetan Buddhism" is like saying "a bishop is a priest in Catholicism." It is true, but it doesn't really help that much. Especially since the next line ("the 14th and current Dalai Lama") seems to mean that 'Dalai Lama' indicates a particular lama of the Gelug school. Can the word "chief" (or "abbott", or whatever is correct) be added before the word "lama" in the first sentence? "The Dalai lama is the head lama of the Gelug school..."? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some clarifications.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I also made some clarifications in the first paragraph, concerning his status within the Gelugpas, and corrected the date of his recognition as the Dalai Lama (it was given as 1950, which was the year when he assumed political responsibility).Sean M Jones (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• The 1st Dalai Lama was not known as the Dalai Lama during his lifetime. Only with the 3rd Dalai Lama does the title arise. For example see the book Tibet: A History, 2011, page 115:

"Thus Sonam Gyatso became the first Tibetan to receive the title Dalai. Since he was the third in a line of rebirths the title was posthumously awarded to his predecessors, which made him the third Dalai Lama."

Yes this is very common knowledge and I totally agree. Sean M Jones (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is debatable that the Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelug school.

It may be considered debatable by some, but not by any Tibetans, and certainly not by the Tibetan Gelugpas themselves. Ask any Gelugpa and they will say their head monk is the Ganden Tripa. What more proof is needed? Some westerners see things differently, true, and would argue the fact, as I wrote it is a common misconception in the west, but who would say that various western commentators and observers know better the answer to this particular question than the Tibetans and the Gelugpas themselves? It is their system. Sean M Jones (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• The 2011 retirement of the Dalai Lama from the CTA has nothing to do with anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your respected opinion that the Dalai Lama's official retirement from all politic activity in 2011 was apparently a totally irrelevant act. However, for the great majority of the Tibetan people who accepted the institution of the Dalai Lama as the spiritual and temporal leader of the country for the last 300+ years, it appears to have been quite significant and much commented on in Tibetan circles as well as in the western news, such as CNN and other major media outlets. The 14th had continued this role of political and spiritual leader before and after his exile and when he announced his retirement from politics it was the first time, interregnums apart, that the institution of the Dalai Lama had not been actively involved in Tibetan politics since the 17th century! Nevertheless, he continues in the role of spiritual leader. Therefore, in the context of this article, which attempts to describe this unique institution of the Dalai Lama (rather than the individual Dalai Lamas themselves who all have their own personal articles elsewhere), his retirement from politics is considered by most Tibetans as a very significant step on behalf of his institution. The whole institution has now changed from being a political and religious one to being only a religious one.

Thank you for wholesale deletion, on 29 April, of all my recent efforts to improve the opening paras of this article as 'original research', VictoriaGrayson! Thanks to your intervention I have now realised that it did not acknowledge opinions such as your own do exist widely in the west, and also that some statements lacked citations. Being new to Wikipedia I am on a learning curve and will try to improve my work accordingly, with less uncited items, no personal conclusions and commentary, no 'peacock' words and a more strictly NPOV! I do appreciate it! But I'll be back, hopefully with a version, better citations and wording that is more acceptable according to your high Wikipedia standards. You are affording me a good training exercise here and I appreciate it. MacPraughan (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Have found an impeccable academic source to confirm Dalai Lamas are not the head monks of the Gelug. Dr Alexander Berzin is quite categorical, I trust this will be acceptable and have corrected the text accordingly and inserted the detailed reference. Hope this settles the discussion amicably. Thanks for the encouragement. MacPraughan (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)