Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Dalai Lama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Section on History - is it relevant to this article?

The introduction to the section on History (the history, supposedly of the institution of the Dalai Lamas) makes no mention or reference, even indirectly, to the subject of the article, the Dalai Lama. The next subsection called "Unification of Tibet" makes no mention of the establishment of the Dalai Lamas, nor of the first four Dalai Lamas, however it does refer briefly to the 5th and the 6th. The next section, entitled 'the 7th Dalai Lama', makes very brief and passing reference to the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10, 11th and 12th Dalai Lamas, with practically no details about any of them. In these 3 subsections there is far more written about the apparently irrelevant actions of non-Tibetans; the Dzungars, the Mongols, the Manchus and the Chinese Ambans. Furthermore there is an nice illustration of Kublai Khan who has no mention at all in this whole article, and another nice one of Gushi Khan who has one very brief mention, but there are no illustrations of any of the 14 Dalai Lamas with whom the article is supposed to be exclusively concerned, apart from in the infoboxes. I therefore have a question: what relevance does all this this 'History' text and these illustrations of Mongols have to the supposed subject of the article? It appears to demand a complete re-write, from scratch, to explain the origins and real history of the institute of the Dalai Lamas, how it developed, how it came to dominate the spiritual and temporal history of Tibet from the 17th century to the Chinese communist invasion, and what happened to it after that. Ideally it should include some interesting and accurate details about each of the 14 Dalai Lamas. I look forward to anyone offering an explanations to justify the existing text, and in the absence of same I propose to research the subject and come up with an alternative text that informs the reader more cogently about the actual subject of the article. MacPraughan (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: You commented on my talk page, but it belongs on this talk page: First, there are a few things to clear up. Who considers Dromtön the 39th incarnation-predecessor of the Dalai Lamas? Second, Teacher-Tulkus are demonstrably a creation of the Mongols, starting with the Sakya. His very title is Mongol: talɛ is "the sea". Certainly there is no citable list of recognised Avalokiteśvara incarnations starting some 40-something teachers before the 3rd Dalai Lama, who was the first of his name - the 1st and second were retroactively titled. I think we need to clearly delineate between statements of piety made by Gelug apologists and biographers and factual material. I also saw no information on the Treasury of Lives to suggest he was considered an incarnation. I'd also like to point out that the Gelug founder was inspired by the Kadam rather than actually being Kadampa himself, and hence the need to underline authority by incorporating Kadam luminaries sort of overshadows this claim to authenticity. Do you have citations to demonstrate this?

Second, if there is missing material on the other Dalai Lamas, it could be added. Many of them are ignored as not particularly notable historical figures aside from their political importance as leader of Tibet. Ogress _smash! 18:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting response, Ogress, and for redirecting me here. In reply, yes, firstly Tibetologist Prof. R A Stein is cited as writing in his 'Tibetan Civilisation' that Dromtön is considered to be an incarnation-predecessor of the Dalai Lamas. If Stein is insufficient on his own the assertion is corroborated in translator Glenn Mullin's 'The 14 Dalai Lamas', page 17, where he refers to chapter 23 of one of Atisha's principal works, apparently well-known to Tibetans, entitled Pacho Bucho (Father Dharmas, son Dharmas) the chapter entitled 'Dromkyo Kyerab' ('The Previous Incarnations of Lama Drom Ton Pa'), quote: "Atisha calls Lama Drom an incarnation of bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara and relates the stories of thirty-six previous lives of Lama Drom... because the 1st Dalai Lama was regarded as Lama Dron's reincarnatiob, all 36 of these becamse attached to him and to the subsequent Dalai Lama incarnations". So please refer to Atisha for the complete list. At least some of them, if not all, are detailed in Mullin's book in the following pages, including ten as Tibetan kings. I hope that suffices and that Atisha is not considered a Gelukpa apologist, since he predates the Gelug founder you refer to by several centuries. I am aware and agree that 'Dalai Lama' is a Mongolian title and also that the first two Dalai Lamas we given the title retroactively. I'm also glad you agree with my suggestion that missing material on other Dalai Lamas could be added, they were leaders of Tibet, after all, as you note. Hope this will be acceptable to you. MacPraughan (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Book of the Kadampas, Dharma Father and Sons is by Legspa'i Shesrab (Lekpé Shérap), not Atiśa; he's a student who founded Sangpu Neutok gömpa, which was the mother monastery of the Oral Lineage Kadam school. Since this is an encyclopedia, we'd have to be very specific that the Oral Lineage Kadam introduced the idea that Dromtön was a reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara into Tibetan Buddhism in general (due to its influential position in Tibetan scholasticism and monasticism at the time). We can't claim Atiśa said it because Lekpé Shérap wrote the book... And yes, the other Dalai Lamas seem notable but probably should be kept to a minimum of information about them. If they are independently notable, they deserve their own page, and honestly, if they haven't gotten one by now... Ogress _smash! 22:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Ogress I’m not sure your last sentence sounds like it is written from a NPOV; “and honestly, if they haven’t gotten one by now ... “? What are we to imagine from it? Is it not belittling, saying all those Dalai Lamas are not ‘independently notable’ enough to merit having their own Wikipedia article by now, let alone a mention on the “Dalai Lama” article? You say whatever can be written about them “should be kept to a minimum”. Do you know that every Dalai Lama from one to fourteen has been considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article already? Sorry about this! MacPraughan (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

MacPraughan, you are turning a polite conversation into an unnecessarily unpleasant situation, you came to my talk page and asked my opinion. When I shrugged and said okay, but if they don't already have a section or whatever consider if they are notable, you turn sarcastic and hostile. Sorry, no, I have not been editing the individual Dalai Lama pages; I did some cleanup here and I'm not the Queen of Wikipedia. Ease up, buddy, I don't know what your problem suddenly is. Ogress _smash! 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You can edit your comments all you like but I already read what you wrote. Ogress _smash! 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Sincere apologies, Ogress. I did try hard not to appear sarcastic, but not hard enough evidently, and indeed after posting it I realised it would be interpreted as such so I came back to edit my comment further to sound as un-sarcastic as possible, but given the circs, too difficult, and also just too late! Evidently, there was no substantial cause to take your remarks as demeaning to those Dalai Lamas who had not been referred to in your rewrite of this section. Let’s say it was entirely my fault for misunderstanding your remarks. I shall try to be constructive and write something here about the absent Dalais, but, taking your advice, only if there is anything notable about any of them. Let’s see. It’s true I asked your advice since I saw you’d been active rewriting this whole section and you seemed a wise and experienced editor with good knowledge of the subject. However, the advice you gave, and the apparent tone, was not quite what I’d expected. I’m on a learning curve, so thank you for your patience, I will try to revert in my comments to being as absolutely neutral and polite as possible from the start and scrutinise it rigorously before publication to eliminate anything that might be considered remotely sarcastic or hostile, meanwhile please accept my sincere apologies for any offence my earlier comment has caused you, which I feel very bad about. I will revert to studying the History of the Dalai Lama and responding to other points. MacPraughan (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could feasibly say, Ogress, that Ngok Lekpai Sherab authored Pacho Bucho, but only in the sense described by Thubten Jinpa in his introduction to his rendering of the Book of Kadam (only the core of which is Atisha's Pacho Bucho, 'Father Dharma, Son Dharma', as described by Mullin - not to be confused with the larger work which you refer to as 'Dharma Father and Sons'), which goes as follows:

"Chapter 23 of the Father Teachings concludes with a short colophon that gives an account of the earliest origin of the teachings of the so-called precious book. According to this account, it was Ngok Lekpai Sherap who, at the urging of Mañjuśrī, went to Mount Lhari Nyingpo in Yerpa, where Master Atiśa and Dromtönpa were residing, and requested them to enter into a series of dialogues based upon Bodhisattva’s Jewel Garland. This discussion takes place over three years, and it is said that Ngok then set these dialogues down in the form of a book."

In other words, Ngok may have 'written the book' but he was only acting as Atisha's secretary. Since Dromton was Atisha's disciple, authorship is credited to Atisha rather than to both. So based on this, Mullin's statement on authorship stands up to scrutiny, and yours appears somewhat presumptuous by comparison. In the same intro, Thubten Jinpa explains again in great detail how Gendun Drub (1st Dalai Lama) is considered an incarnation of Dromton, and how Dromton was considered one in a long line of incarnations of Chenrezig going back to very early Tibetan history. Moreover, Jinpa further clarifies Lekpai Sherab's role as author of the Book of Kadam (which includes Atisha's Pacho Bucho text amongst others) as follows:

"Given the specific nature of the oral tradition pertaining to the early, “legendary” transmission of the teachings of the book, I am also inclined to accept that the two figures — Ngok Lekpai Sherap and Sherap Gyaltsen, both of whom met Atiśa and Drom — were responsible for the initial development of, or at least the idea of, a special corpus of Kadam teachings centered on Drom as the spiritual heir of Master Atiśa and, more importantly, as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara.""

So this must be how you came to think that Lekpai Sherab was the author of the Pacho Bucho. Entirely understandable. However, Jinpa further disagrees with you on the creator of the Book of the Kadampas, Dharma Father and Sons, he says in the same intro that it was 'formally compiled by Khenchen around 1302.' But he does credit Nogk with authorship of a lamrim: "there appears to have been a lamrim by Ngok Lekpai Sherap (1018–1115) based on Khutön Tsöndrü Yungdrung’s (1011–75) teachings." So if that is included in the Book of Kadam then Ngok has certainly written a part of it, even if it was based on someone else's teachings, so you would not be entirely wrong in your assertion.

In conclusion, on the basis of Jinpa's introduction to The Book of Kadam corroborating what Mullin and Stein have already researched and written between them on Atisha and the Dromton and Dalai Lama lineage of Chenrezig, and adding a great deal of additional detail, I would go with publishing it in this encyclopedia, citing the sources and being very specific as you suggest.

I do think the other Dalai Lamas deserve a good look at as regards notability, pity that some died young but they all have voluminous biographies about them by Tibetan authors, and quite a bit from western sources too judging by Mullin's body of work amongst others. I will check out why they don't already have their own articles here, as you note. There is a lot in the world that is notable that doesn't yet have an article on it, I read that Wikipedia is a work in progress, that contributors are sought after and encouraged and I am happy to contribute whatever meagre scraps of useful info that I can. The more info about the Dalai Lamas, the better, as far as I'm concerned. MacPraughan (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But the Book of Kadam translator you cite specifically notes the question of its authenticity in his introduction, questioning its original form and its origin story. His conclusion is that while there was likely a core collection of teachings written by Ngok Lekpé Sherap, the “miracle book”, it wasn't until the 13th century that a student of the later Drom wrote down his 'perfect memory' of the “miracle book” that was secretly stored in a pillar. This is firmly within tertön territory; I don't mean invented whole-cloth tertön, but an elaborated, polished public printing of secret oral teachings passed down for hundreds of years. And the printed book claims Ngok Lekpé Sherap recorded the discussion of Atiśa and Dromtön... which once again means he is the author. "Ngok says Atiśa said X." Note this rather crucial comment by Thubten Jinpa, where he denies that the text was Atiśa's, but specifically notes it does likely contain a work (literally 26 stanzas!) by Atiśa. "That Atiśa is the author of Bodhisattva’s Jewel Garland, which became the root text of both the Father and Son Teachings, remains beyond doubt, given its similarities in content, language, and structure to Atiśa’s other recorded works. But there is no obvious connection, apart from the relationship of a root text to its commentary, between the instructions on the sevenfold divinity and teaching, centered especially on the meditative practice of Avalokiteśvara, and Atiśa’s short text, which on the surface pertains to standard bodhisattva practices." Tertön territory, as I said. Jinpa concludes the likely author was Phuchungwa.

You can read the entire intro by here (thank you, Wisdom Publications, for your sexy website): http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/book-kadam/introduction Ogress _smash! 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Jinpa’s complete Introduction to the Book of Kadam, Ogress. It’s good you point it out to us since I've read it through and it’s a sound basis with plenty of quotes for tracing the origins of the Dalai Lamas as incarnations of Avalokiteshvara back to Dromtönpa, and before. It shows these origins cannot be attributed to political considerations alone, through whatever line of reasoning.

Although, as you note, Jinpa states unequivocally “That Atiśa is the author of Bodhisattva’s Jewel Garland, which became the root text of both the Father and Son Teachings, remains beyond doubt”, whether Lekpai Sherab is preferred as author is immaterial.

That's because whoever we say authored it, Jinpa shows ‘The Book’ gives ample evidence of the existence of an ancient, mythological Tibetan narrative placing the Dalai Lamas as incarnations of Dromtönpa, of his predecessors and of Avalokiteshvara.

“The birth stories of Dromtönpa’s former lives are at the heart of the teachings of the Book [of Kadam],” he writes. Concluding his initial overview, he notes “perhaps the most important legacy of the book, at least for the Tibetan people as a whole, is that it laid the foundation for the later identification of Avalokiteśvara with the lineage of the Dalai Lama” and he follows that with “available textual evidence points strongly toward the eleventh and twelfth centuries as the period during which the full myth of Avalokiteśvara special destiny with Tibet was established. During this era, the belief that this compassionate spirit intervenes in the fate of the Tibetan people by manifesting as benevolent rulers and teachers took firm root.”

Throughout the Introduction he refers repeatedly to Dromton’s previous lives listed in the Son Teachings, concluding with: “For the Tibetans, the mythic narrative that began with Avalokiteśvara’s embodiment in the form of Songtsen Gampo in the seventh century—or even earlier with the mythohistorical figures of the first king of Tibet, Nyatri Tsenpo (traditionally calculated to have lived around the fifth century B.C.E.), and Lha Thothori Nyentsen (ca. third century c.e.), during whose reign some sacred Buddhist scriptures are believed to have arrived in Tibet—and continued with Dromtönpa in the eleventh century continues today in the person of His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.”

I consider Jinpa speaks well on behalf of the Tibetans and their world and that his analysis, endorsed by Glenn Mullin’s chapter on the subject (as well as, in general, by R.A. Stein and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp as quoted by John Hill below) provides credible material for new opening theme to the History section. Would you agree with that? MacPraughan (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing,Ogress, when I questioned why all this seemingly irrelevant Mongolian/Kagyu info formed the intro into "History of the Dalai Lama", you replied to inform me yesterday, explaining: "Second, Teacher-Tulkus are demonstrably a creation of the Mongols, starting with the Sakya." Can you explain how, 'demonstrably', please? It does not follow. The 17th Karmapa himself claims that the tulku system was initiated by the Tibetan Karma Kagyus when Pomdraka recognised Karma Pakshi as the incarnation of the first Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa, causing Karma Pakshi to be made the 2nd Karmapa (the first ever tulku), before he ever went to Mongolia. Has the 17th Karmapa got it wrong, according to your account? How did the Mongols manage what you say? And secondly, what exactly has it got to do with the Sakya? I am confused and would like to understand since you appear to know what you're talking about. Why should the whole section not be deleted and we start from scratch, writing about the subject of the article? I am all ears. MacPraughan (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The appearance of the teacher-tulku system is as much a political development related to Mongolian political dominance in Asia as it is Tibetan understanding of the bodhisattva and the teacher-student relationship. I did misspeak about the Sakyas; it was in fact the Karmapas who were first. (I should have remembered given that I recently rewrote that article, but it was late...) Qubilai was his first patron, who he passed over for Möngke, who was the Khagan at the time. His importance in the Imperial Court was followed by the rise of a political elite comprised of newly-minted teacher-tulkus. The coinage of new tulkus never ended since then. And the relationship between the new tulkus wasn't always some random child: the first of the brand-new tulkus of Jamgon Kongtrul in 1902 was the son of the 15th Karmapa. The Sakya, in contrast, had a physical lineage: its leadership passes down through the Khön family. It was the importance of the Sakya as appointed leadership of Tibet by the Mongols that was contested by the Karmapa. Many other lineages followed suit and the carrot of political power is obvious. We can't ignore the giant waving flag of politics in these matters no matter how worldly it seems.

As for why we can't delete that section: well, as the cite says, "The establishment of the teacher-tulku system for the Karma Kagyu lead to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism creating similar systems. (Buswell 2014:421)" It is the ultimate origin of the religio-political power of the Dalai Lama lineage, which ruled Tibet for a Very Long Time. Six sentences is not undue weight when it is literally an explanation for the rise of the tulku system. I'd actually like to make it five sentences, because it seems to me that this bit contains peacock terms: "Before his death in 1283, Karma Pakshi wrote a will to protect the established interests of his lineage, the Karma Kagyu, by advising his disciples to locate a boy to inherit the black hat. His instruction was based on the premise that the Dharma is eternal and that the Buddha would send emanations to complete the missions he had initiated. Karma Pakshi's disciples acted in accordance with the will and located the reincarnated boy of their master.[citation needed]" I actually can probably find a cite but I'd shorten that bit.

So. That's my reply. I didn't mean to sound difficult or whatever, I was just trying to be direct. As for sounding learned: well, I've been wading in deep waters but I doubt many people really understand what is going on in the entire world. Ogress _smash! 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to a Query about whether the Dalai Lamas are incarnations of Dromtön

I have just received a query about a reference I gave many years ago on the WP article on Dromtön. As i think it may have some relevance to the discussion here - I will paste it in below:

Hi Sean! Thanks so much for providing so many details on this interesting query making it easier for me to check. First, I should emphasize that the text I wrote on Dromtön was an attempted brief summary paraphrased from what R.A. Stein said - not an exact quote.

On rereading the whole passage I note that Stein makes a rather complex comment about these incarnations of Avalokiteśvara - one that I find rather difficult to fully understand. It is clear that the present Dalai Lama is considered to be a reincarnation of the First Dalai Lama, and both are incarnations of Avalokiteśvara, as is Dromtön. Whether this makes Dromtön "part of the early lineage of the Dalai Lamas" is, on reflection, beyond my expertise to decide. I think it would be best to put this question to some recognised Tibetan authority on such matters.

The quote I was referring to is as follows:

"Tibet has often been described as a theocratic state. That is true to the extent that, in recent centuries, a central government, has been headed by the Dalai Lama: the incarnation—indirectly, it is true—of Avalokiteśvara, Tibet's patron bodhisattva, whose statue stands in the capital. There was a precedent for this: the same deity had already been incarnated in Tibet's first centralizing king, Songtsen Gampo, who at his death dissolved and melted into the same statue. It would be more accurate, however, to speak of an ecclesiastical state: first, because other hierarchs have ruled the whole or part of Tibet, some also incarnations and others not; but mainly because the Dalai Lama is not, any more than the Panchen Lama or any other incarnate lama, Avalokiteśvara's direct incarnation, repeated every time. Like all the others, he is the rebirth of the historical figure he was in his preceding life, a link in the chain that starts in history and leads back through legend to a deity in mythical times. The First Dalai Lama, Gedün-trup (1391-1474), was already the 51st incarnation; the teacher Dromtön, Atiśa's disciple (eleventh century), the 45th; whilst the 26th, one Gesar king of India, and the 27th, a hare, we are in pure legend." Stein (1972), pp. 138-139.

It may help anyone trying to decide whether the Dalai Lamas are considered to be reincarnations of Dromtön to consider the following quote:

“Who is the Dalai Lama? A man? A monk? A god? Leonard van der Kuijp surveys the prehistory of the Dalai Lama as a divinity, as the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. How and when did the Dalai Lamas come to be associated with the most important Buddhist celestial being in Tibet? Van der Kuijp provides answers to these questions in this study of the history of an idea. If the Dalai Lamas are the most famous embodiments of Avalokiteśvara in Tibet, they are by no means the first leaders to have been identified with the bodhisattva. Van der Kuijp places the origins of the tradition as early as the eleventh century, when the institution builder Dromtön was invested with the authority and status of Avalokiteśvara by his Indian guest, the Buddhist scholar Atiśa. In Atiśa’s telling, Dromtön was not only Avalokiteśvara but also a reincarnation of former Buddhist monks, laypeople, commoners, and kings. Furthermore, these reincarnations were all incarnations of that very same being, Avalokiteśvara. Van der Kuijp takes us on a tour of literary history, showing that the narrative attributed to Atiśa became a major source for both incarnation and reincarnation ideology for centuries to come.” From: “The Dalai Lamas and the Origins of Reincarnate Lamas. Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp” In: The Tibetan History Reader by Tuttle and Schaffer, 2013, p. 335.

I hope I haven't made this rather complex area of Tibetan Buddhist theology even murkier. I think we need expert help to make a final decision. I do hope it can be resolved satisfactorily.

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Hill, and thank you very much for all this information that you have very kindly researched and copied out. It is very useful indeed in the work being done to improve this article. You have not made it murkier at all, because the citations you have provided give additional weight and perspective in terms of source material to support the expansion of the History section by adding this mythological, legendary but traditional Tibetan cultural dimension or aspect of the history of the phenomenon known as the Dalai Lama, which is missing from the current version. As it stands, the history begins with the creation of the Karmapa lineage in the 13th century, simply as a precedent, with the Dalai Lama following suit, so the Kagyu tulku system is said to be the “the ultimate origin of the religio-political power of the Dalai Lama lineage”. Therefore the new sources you provide here make it clearer, not murkier.

However I don't think this discussion is simply an argument to decide one way or the other whether the Dalai Lama is an incarnation of Dromtön. It is just to provide additional information cited from traditional scriptural Tibetan sources like Atiśa where such claims have been made with all the details laid out. As your quote from Stein puts it, the lineage 'starts in history and leads back through legend to a deity in mythical times.' This is a fact, these myths have existed for a 1,000 years and can be stated as such. If you can find anything additional please let us know.

On a more personal note I noticed you have written many articles about Tibet, where I travelled quite widely in the 1980s. I've added to the article of Riwoche Gompa a photo which I took when crossing Kham from Chengdu to Lhasa in '88, and I intend to add more, where appropriate.

Best wishes and wishing you good health, MacPraughan (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

'Moving on' section

Hi there Ogress, [and anyone else interested] here I am again as politely as possible about your re-written History of the Dalai Lama. In light of your explanation, I think the point might be more succinctly expressed, explicit and shorn of irrelevant detail, like this: “In the C13th, when the Sakya and the Kagyu were vying with each other under the Mongols, the Kagyu gained political influence by inventing the Karmapa tulku system. Therefore, for the same purpose, in the C16th, the Gelug copied the Kagyu by inventing their own tulku: the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the Dalai Lama owes the fact of his emergence to the Karmapa.” I hope I understood correctly and missed out nothing of importance so your average Wikipedia reader checking on the Dalai Lama’s origins could more easily get your entire point.

As an uninformed Wikipedia reader reading and understanding this clearly, my first question to that scenario would be: if the Gelug purpose of imitating the Kagyu tulku system was to gain power, why was there is a gap of 336 years (circa 1214 to 1550)? Plus nearly another 100 and 420 years in total before the 5th took power? Can it be credible that they planned so far ahead, after waiting so long? We are talking about a gap of 3 or 4 centuries, apparently saying, “because Karmapa Tulku was established in the C13th and became a political force, the 3rd Dalai Lama Tulku was established in the C16th, to become a political force as the 5th in the C17th. Therefore, the Dalai Lama owes the fact of his emergence to the Karmapa.” There must be more to it than that. One could just as easily say that “since Christianity was created by Christ in the 1st century and it became a world religion, Islam was therefore created by Mohammad in the 6th century, also in order to become a world religion. Therefore, Mohammad owes the fact of his and Islam's emergence to Christ.” It simply does not follow, the logic does not bear weight.

You say your theory should not, cannot be deleted because “it is literally an explanation for the rise of the tulku system.” Are you implying that the mystical side of Tibetan Buddhist culture embracing the entire Tulku system can be dismissed en masse as politically-motivated hocus-pocus, just a phoney, artificial device lacking merit? Does Wikipedia not acknowledge such cultural traditions as equally valid to others, like western materialism and democracy? Can Tibetan Buddhism’s millions of adherents be safely ignored? Just asking. I’m sure you’re not, and it does, and they can’t, but where is the evidence of that? It’s possible for readers to impute here they you do, and it doesn’t, and they can. I am on a learning curve and all ears open to the wise. Far be it from me to criticise, I am asking what I sincerely hope are valid and pertinent questions based on what you published. Of course I don’t deny and fully acknowledge the validity of your theory of the cause of the historical emergence of the Dalai Lamas being theoretically, possibly and retrospectively in small part perhaps misused, manipulated or taken advantage of in an attempt for Gelugpas to gain political power and so forth, all and any of which would need to be evidenced with citations, if that is what you want to say, rather than leaving it darkly implied as some sort of sinister conspiracy. However I do question whether this theory of yours does not comprise only one possible and narrow facet of a complex, profound and influential phenomenon and whether, by leaving out all and any other contributing factors it tends to belittle or demean it. I am confident your intention is not to cast aspersion on the merit and sincerity of the Dalai Lamas or of the Tulku tradition in general, despite the implications in the wording of your opinions expressed here that “[Karmapa’s] importance in the Imperial Court was followed by the rise of a political elite comprised of newly-minted teacher-tulkus. The coinage of new tulkus never ended since then. And the relationship between the new tulkus wasn't always some random child: the first of the brand-new tulkus of Jamgon Kongtrul in 1902 was the son of the 15th Karmapa.”

Rather than comment on that I would ask, have you or anyone else anything else, something, anything positive to note about the origins or the persons of the Dalai Lamas or the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of tulkus, that takes into account the views and feelings of the millions around the world who are part of it and who respect it? If so including it in the article it might improve the tone and balance. I ask this because you took it upon yourself to rewrite this section and thus bear some responsibility for its balance and fairness. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am unsure of my ground here and hesitate to barge in and just delete and replace whatever appears illogical or irrelevant. I respect others opinions and prefer to try some open debate to air my views beforehand. MacPraughan (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to consider a few things. First, that this is an encyclopedia and thus isn't going to be apologist; if it is apologist for any faith on any page, that's only because it needs to be rewritten. Second, that the emergence of lineages in power doesn't mean it wasn't an organic growth within the Tibetan Buddhist worldview. Third, I never denied that it matches the strong ideas of reincarnation and the Boddhisattva ideal. I'm not disrespectful of the tulku reincarnation lineages as indigenous power structures. Still, just as with the foundational myth of Bad King Langdarma, we have to talk about both internal and external views of the subject. (That reminds me... that page is a mess.) Langdarma is explained as the Bon-supporting evil anti-Buddhist, which is important because of its role in Tibetan Buddhist culture. His murder is celebrated yearly as the defeat of the enemies of the Dharma. AND YET he was an actual historical figure whose name was "Bull of the Dharma", "Bon" did not actually exist yet (the term doesn't appear outside of rare references to funerary priests in Tibetan texts of the time) so its unclear what he was allegedly 'supporting', and his actual historical life is important to examine as well because he was a real human being.

Equally, we must discuss both the importance of the Dalai Lamas as well as the factual nature of their existences and origins. There is nothing wrong with that. I myself identify as a Buddhist - I took the Five Precepts in 1992 upon entering a monastery of the Jogye Order as well as temporary śrāmaṇerī vows in the Dharmaguptaka vinaya! - and I can both document the position of, say, East Asian Yogācāra and its resultant effect on believers and their actions as well as discuss the influence of different thinkers and religions on those beliefs. The well-known "translation" of Buddhism had a fundamental effect on Buddhist thought that has never been erased. As an editor, we must be able to approach things encyclopedically. You seem to understand my position as skeptic, but that's literally our job as editors. I respect the Dalai Lama lineage; I also revere the Bodongpa Samding Dorje Phagmo lineage. And yet I also recognise the historical pressures that affected their appearances. We can tell the story of the śrāmaṇerīs turning into sows and driving the Mongols away while also documenting the actual lives of the historical Dorjé Phakmos (and their allies, Geluk and non-Geluk!) and the role of women in Tibetan Buddhism.

As for your third question, that of the appearance of the Dalai Lamas "so late", I'd like to point out that the incarnation lineage was in existence already. The 3rd Dalai Lama was the one appointed the title, but he was already in an incarnation lineage, the Ganden Tripa recognised him as the reincarnation of Gendün Gyatso, who was himself a recognised reincarnation of Gendün Druppa. During their lives, the Phakmodru dynasty controlled Tibet and it wasn't until the Great Fifth that the Dalai Lamas took over rule. The time lag is not as long as all that, and also, these lineages were not Machiavellian inventions out of thin air. They were, as I said, organic. They stem from actual practice and theory in Tibetan Buddhism. I have no doubt in the sincerity of the practitioners' beliefs. Still, that does not mean they were not informed by the fact of political power: Buddhism was always used to build and destroy political structures in Tibet, why would the Mongols' domination of all of the known world at the time be any different? Ogress _smash! 20:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. the time span between the 2nd Karmapa and the 2nd Dalai Lama, Ogress, it was at least 250 years, and another 160 or so before the 5th Dalai Lama took power. Whereas, there is a pithy saying, ‘one week is a long time in politics’. The arisal of Tulkus coming to bear considerable political weight in Tibet might be better and more plausibly ascribed to the exceptional strength of their personal charisma, popularity and influence over interested rulers as pre-eminent spiritual leaders, teachers, gurus and advisors, rather than to the underhand machinations of political manipulators.

As with leaders anywhere, false tulkus can fool some of the people for some of the time, but the majority of Tibetans as a whole soon come to know a genuine Tulku from a phoney one simply by observing their behaviour and activities and composing popular sings about.

The discovery, recognition, doings and life of the 2nd Dalai Lama as described in detail over 44 pages of Mullin’s book (drawn directly from various Tibetan sources) is all pastoral and devoid of political overtone; if those who appointed him were motivated by political ambitions and intended to use him to gain political influence this would have manifested at some point in his 67 year lifespan, but not a trace of this is in the story. So to really put this “tulku system = a political device” theory to the test, we need to see whether the 5th’s rise to power 160 years later was due to the Mongol overlords’ spiritual devotion and confidence in his abilities as a wise and competent guru, or whether they were fooled into installing him as a puppet by cunning Gelug politicians after impressing them with pomp and circumstance, or whatever. My meagre understanding (after the best part of a year in UB) of one crucial technique of the imperial Mongolian ruling system (which helped make their empire so large and last so long, roughly twice as big as the British empire, and lasting twice as long, I read somewhere, despite their small population of under a million and the lack of industrial-age technologies to help run the empire) is that they carefully selected the most competent local rulers to whom they delegated leadership of the peoples they conquered, and made a practice and a virtue of learning locally developed administrative skills, techniques and methodologies from such rulers and peoples to usefully disseminate and apply throughout their empire. If this is true and valid observation then one can more safely conclude the 5th Dalai Lama was chosen on merit, not just as a political puppet and figurehead solely due to any authority inherent in his Tulku-hood - as the theory would presumably require.

I will leave those who know all about the political manipulation of spiritual leaders for personal advantage to detail more about this aspect of the Dalai Lamas, insofar as this aspect of the institution might exist, for there are always plenty of unscrupulous Tibetans (and others) trying to manipulate them for personal gain. My meagre personal knowledge and interest concerns what you now say you accept and refer to as the ‘organic’ emergence and growth of lineages ‘within the Tibetan Buddhist worldview’ and in accordance with established concepts of ‘reincarnation and the bodhisattva ideal’ that led to ‘tulku reincarnation lineages as indigenous power structures’.

I am happy you acknowledge all that because it provides solid common ground on which we can expand this History and make it less one-dimensional, by adding details of those other complex cultural dimensions within which most Tibetans, Tibetan Buddhists, Tibetophiles, Tibetologists and their sympathisers and followers exist and adhere to as real. Naturally, any such additions will have to be characterised as consisting of (and existing as) ‘traditional folklore’, ‘popular belief’, ‘Tibetan Buddhist belief’, ‘Tibetan mythological history’, ‘oral lineage’ or ‘legendary’ and so forth, as appropriate, citing valid sources in support of every statement; but equally none of it can be dismissed or ignored as ‘hocus-pocus’. So maybe we can start off with the Ogress and the Monkey? That’s about where Avalokiteshvara first got started in Tibet, I understand; didn’t he? MacPraughan (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"As with leaders anywhere, false tulkus can fool some of the people for some of the time, but the majority of Tibetans as a whole soon come to know a genuine Tulku from a phoney one simply by observing their behaviour and activities and composing popular sings about." This is the kind of OR we cannot engage in as editors. It's nice that you think that, but it's thunderously un-encyclopedic. I'm glad you believe in the tulku system but Wikipedia does not present your feelings on the topic as fact. We rely on solid appropriate sources. When presenting material on religious belief, Wikipedia:I just don't like it is a really important principle. We can write about teachings and beliefs as demonstrated by scholars in secondary sources, but we absolutely cannot start from the presumption that 'the power of a real tulku will out in the end'. That's magical thinking and has no place in preparing an article on Wikipedia. We present what secondary sources say about a topic. How is that any different from a Hindu deciding to rewrite all the Buddhism articles under the presumption that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu (an actual and fairly widespread belief) or a Christian deciding to rewrite Islam articles based on the presumption that Muhammad's teachings were just messed-up Christianity (see above re: an actual and disturbingly widespread belief)? You need to try to check that behavior at the door; if you can't, edit articles that aren't about topics you are so invested in. Ogress _smash! 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So whatever is written in discussion on the 'talk' page is subject to the same Wikipedia rules as apply to what is published in the article? Thanks for letting me know, after reading some of your comments Ogress, I didn't understand that. Is "Buddhism was always used to build and destroy political structures in Tibet" acceptable, as it stands? Then there's your implication in the article about the Dalai Lama system arising because of what the Kagyupa did centuries before. Anyway I'll take your criticism on board and watch what I write. Thanks for the warning. I assume the rest of my comment is agreeable to you as you have no other objection, and will proceed as proposed. MacPraughan (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

*throws hands up* you were stating your belief about the validity of the tulku system in relation to editing the page. Of course it was of concern. You keep talking about people who support and like the Dalai Lama editing the page. At some point that needed to be addressed, because that's not why we edit pages. That way leads to trouble. We don't need Dalai Lama haters or lovers here. This is Wikipedia, and we don't need drama, we need factual information from reliable, published sources FULL STOP.

Second, it's not "my theory", it's cited information on the page: "The establishment of the teacher-tulku system for the Karma Kagyu lead to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism creating similar systems." (Buswell 2014:421) Ogress _smash! 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you again, Ogress, I'll bear in mind that paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln's famous aphorism marks one as a 'believer' in whatever is being referred to and therefore plainly biased. I beg your pardon. I got the wrong impression from your disdainful comments about the ‘endless coining’ of presumably dubious Tulkus that it is permissible to discuss the subject generally here, how they are seen by Tibetans and so forth, and evidently I have fallen into some kind of a trap. That is also after reading your intriguing personal history and details about the five precepts and the śrāmaṇerī nuns' vows you've taken, and the Korean Jogye and Dharmaguptaka monastic orders you've belonged to, and 'śrāmaṇerīs turning into sows and driving the Mongols away', and your striking abilities ‘to document the position of, say, East Asian Yogācāra and its resultant effect on believers and their actions as well as discuss the influence of different thinkers and religions on those beliefs’, as well as your discourses about Langdarma and Dorjé Phakmos and so forth. It is all very impressive and I do get the point that you are outstandingly knowledgeable and accomplished, with many attainments, whereas I am a beginner and know next to nothing so naturally I defer to you on everything you say. However, I hope you will excuse me if I ask the odd question of you.

Secondly I apologise for once again for appearing to criticise you, for what you cite from Buswell in good faith. You are right as ever and therefore if anyone, it is Buswell who deserves any criticism for any flaws inherent in the related theory of the origin of the Dalai Lama. Your theory depends exclusively upon his theory, just as, according to your conclusion from the citation, ‘the existence of the Dalai Lamas depends solely upon the Karmapas’. I wonder what the 17th Karmapa would make of this. I must ask him. After all, Buswell (whose "career trajectory", Wikipedia tells us with typical gravitas, has "resembled a rocket", and is a person who “enjoys the status of a public intellectual”) is a notable specialist on Korean and Chinese Buddhism ('Chan') and on Korean religions in general. So, though Tibet is not far away from Korea, and Vajrayana is not much different from Chan, can we assume it was his co-author Lopez, a specialist in Tibetan Buddhism, and not Buswell, who asserts that the creation of the Karmapa Tulku is the “ultimate origin of the religio-political power of the Dalai Lama lineage”, as you state? Perhaps our Karmapa would feel quite pleased with such a judgment. Or more likely, knowing him, embarrassed by it.

Next, is your sentence “The establishment of the teacher-tulku system for the Karma Kagyu lead [sic] to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism creating similar systems” a direct quotation from Buswell? If not, can you please quote the actual words from the dictionary on which you base this assertion? Having been a Jogye monastic in Korea, do you have any connection with Buswell, who happened to spend 5 years at a temple of that same order? MacPraughan (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yay, personal attacks. "In the history of Tibetan Buddhism, the lineage of the Karma pas is considered to be the first to institutionalize its succession of incarnate lamas, a practice later adopted by the other sects." I thought it might be nice not to make a page built out of direct quotes like a skeleton. The authors are actually Buswell, Lopez, Ahn, Chu, Goodman, Ham, Kim, Lee, Pranke, Quintman, Sparham, Stiller and Zeigler, actually, but that's too long to cite so we, like the book's cover, use Buswell, Lopez. Incidentally, it's the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, a very highly-respected tome. As for me, in 1994, there were about 10 million Jogye Buddhists in Korea, so no, I didn't know him. Also, the "Jogye Order" is actually fractured into multiple sects, and I have no idea which one he studied with: mine was in New England. In fact, I didn't know he was a Korean specialist. Thanks for letting me know. I'd like to point out here I'm not editing in favor of the Jogye, nor have I in the past. Just because I studied Korean Seon 20 years ago doesn't mean I'm sectarian. Saying "As with leaders anywhere, false tulkus can fool some of the people for some of the time, but the majority of Tibetans as a whole soon come to know a genuine Tulku from a phoney one simply by observing their behaviour and activities and composing popular sings about", on the other hand, is sectarian.

'Śrāmaṇerīs turning into sows and driving the Mongols away' is an event associated with the actual life of the first Samding Dorje Phakmo, a Bodongpa tulku. Not sure where you were going with that comment, but was a student of the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama and associated with Thangtong Gyalpo. Note that we report what secondary sources say, not weigh in with our own opinions on the talk page. Ogress _smash! 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What a trip, Ogress. I should have asked for this at the start, it explains everything. So the actual quotation you are citing says: “In the history of Tibetan Buddhism, the lineage of the Karmapas is considered to be the first to institutionalize its succession of incarnate lamas, a practice later adopted by the other sects.”

Personally, I don’t think anyone can read anything more into this than what it actually says. To contend that this sentence implies that “The Dalai Lama system owes its entire existence to invention of Karmapa Tulku system by the Karma Kagyu” is, frankly, absurd. What it does clearly say is that all the various sects’ existing informal Tulku systems were formalised in a similar way, after the Karma Kagyu successfully formalised theirs.

Anyway I’m very glad we, or at least I, have clarity on this issue now. Thank you for your patience. No more questions. MacPraughan (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ogress is right.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Shoko Asahara

Amusing that all mention of the Dalai Lama's business with Shoko Asahara and Aum Shinrikyo is expunged. Very 1984.50.8.115.78 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Gyatso Last name

I suggest to add these informations to the text:

 Dalai is the Mongol word for "ocean". The title "Dalai Lama" was given by the Mongolian khan to the third Dalai Lama in 1578 (and posthumously to the first and the second Dalai Lamas). The third as well as the second before him of the Dalai Lamas had the Tibetan name Gyatso in their name, which also means "ocean", so the Mongol word Dalai was actually just a translation of this name. After that, all the Dalai Lamas have had the name "Gyatso" among their names (the present, 14th, is called Tenzin Gyatso, the 13th was called Thubten Gyatso, and so on).
 Gyatso is actually not a "last name" (surname), but just the second of two (first) names. The Tibetans generally don't have surnames like we have.
 So, in short:
 Tibetan "Gyatso" = Mongol "Dalai" = English "ocean".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.121.169 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101222005721/http://www.tibet.net:80/en/index.php?id=9 to http://tibet.net/en/index.php?id=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Major problems with citations

This article relies on multiple separate citations belonging to the same source which is poor scholarship and misleading.

An example is Mullins, 2001 which is cited as if it were 15 or more separate works. This is bordering on plagiarism as vast amounts of the content is based on one or two sources.

The article requires considerable work to rectify these problems

Dr.khatmando (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are 78 separate Mullin, 2001 citations belonging to the same reference Dr.khatmando (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

5th Dalai Lama

Dear friends, the article about the fifth Dalai Lama and the mongol invasion is completely partial. The 5th Dalai Lama f.e. admits in his own autobiography that he did NOT object against the mongol attacks. "The Dalai Lama then ordered that Beri should be destroyed and that strife (that is, opposition) would not be tolerated", Elliot Sperling resumes the autobiography in: „Orientalism« and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition“, in: Dodin, Thierry & Raether Heinz (Hrsg.), Imagining Tibet - Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies, Boston, 2001. Read the whole article, its very interesting : http://info-buddhism.com/Orientalism_Violence_Tibetan_Buddhism_Elliot_Sperling.html If you just relay on Shabakas work you get of course another picture, as he was pro-Gelukpa and a minsiter of the Dalai Lama' governemnt in Tibet. Best wishes Gerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagyü Biography (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Gerd, the article you mention by Elliot Sperling has been dicredited due to a serious misreading on his part, please read the section on the Fifth Dalai Lama's own article entitled "Controversy", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Dalai_Lama#Controversy. Elliot has kindly acknowledged his mistake, see the reference. As regards your other point about the attack on Beri, thanks for that, I will check it out and correct it if necessary. MacPraughan (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You were right, I have corrected it. Please let me know if you find anything else that needs improvement. MacPraughan (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Source should be published in English language?

MacPraughan reverted my changes a few times, and he said "The source should be pubished in English language", first my source is in English language from Google books, second, non-English language can also be used as a source. Eipviongll (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

MacPraughan is incorrect. Non-English language sources can be used per WP:NOENG --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The following reliable source is in English language, there's no way to prove it "Chinese source" as MacPraughan emphasized: https://books.google.com/books?id=haMIsdC3iZwC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false Eipviongll (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the publication is in English, Eipviongll. The title you had given for it looks exactly like Chinese to me, not English!

Anyway, I have looked at it now but I have to say that at first glance it does not seem to come within the definition of "a reliable, authentic, independent and recognised source". It appears to be just a kind of childish pamphlet written by a completely unknown author. I searched for the stated author, Chen Chingying, by Google search but there was nothing whatsoever, no information at all about him or her to be found anywhere on the internet. Normally, full details about a recognised, qualified and reliable author can be found on the internet, and usually a reliable and recognised author has an article about them on Wikipedia but of course there is nothing whatsoever. Authors of reliable books normally have a track record of study and publications including qualifications, professional accreditations, good reputation and background, but this author appears to be completely unknown and unaccredited.

I also tried to find the ISBN for this supposed book but there is no record of one. It does not have an ISBN, therefore it is not a recognised or reliable book. It does not even say anywhere where is was published, it does not even have an index, it does not even have a bibliography, it does even not have any review of it, it does not even have any kind of introduction, foreword or acknowledgements, nor i there any mention or recommendation by any third party in support.

In addition, the English it is written in is very poor quality, as if it is written for small children by someone who does not know how to speak good English. Example: the title of chapter 8 talks about how "To Determine the Soul Boys of Late Living". This is just nonsense, it can hardly be meant to be serious English, it seems to be written by a child, or for small children.

Further, the supposed 'book' is not listed under the Sources to the article (since it has no ISBN number or other authentication), and neither does it even appear in the list of books for Further Reading.

All these things and more make it very clear that this is not a recognised or reliable author, and this so-called book which is otherwise unknown and unquoted anywhere (except by yourself) does not reach the standards required of Wikipedia sources. (May I ask, btw, are you by chance the author of this publication yourself?)

If Wikipedia is to allow this kind of publication to be accepted as a recognised, authentic, reliable and independent source for promoting serious allegations about historical matters in Wikipedia then I will be very much surprised. Compared to all the other history books listed as sources to this article, which are all by well-known authors with a well known scholastic and academic track record in the subject, this publication is a mere pamphlet which carries no weight. Anybody can write something like this, saying whatever they want, and can pay to have it published, but this does not make it a reliable, authentic, recognised and independent source of information able to be used to make contentiou and questionable suppositions about Tibetan hitory on Wikipedia.

But please let me know what proofs you can produce to show this source is reliable, etcetera, up to Wikipedia standards, and please address all my concerns and respond satisfactorily to all the comments I have made that disqualify ths book as an acceptable source, otherwise I regret that we shall have to go back and delete as soon as possible all the entries you have made on the basis of the strange and rather bizarre allegations that you have picked out from this publication and posted them here as if they are reliable facts, which readers might think are true 'because they are in Wikipedia'. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

ISBN 978-7-5085-0745-3, this book can be purchased from many stores including Amazon. This is English language source, not Chinese language source. Please don't skip the important word Buddhas from "Late Living". The author seems to be a scholar in Tibetan history, he wrote at least 72 papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet, more info can be found here: http://people.tibetcul.com/zrzy/xs/201311/32461.html Eipviongll (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Eipviongll, but the website link you sent is all in Chinese, there is no English translation, so it is not a valid verification of anything for the English Wikipedia unless you give a full translation. This person is unknown and when one googles his name there is zero result, sorry! Perhaps on Chinese google he can be found, but in English this person is unknown. Also in any case as you must know, websites are not considered good sources for verification, even if it was translated or in English language.

I checked the pamphlet's Contents again and in the link you sent for the book the work "Buddhas" does Not appear in the title of Chapter 8, I quoted it correctly, what are you referring to here, I do not follow your comment. MacPraughan (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you use translate.google.com? I don't know how you searched information, anyway, some links from academic institutes are here:

http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~li11/research/cv.txt

http://www.ethnos.nccu.edu.tw/e-teacher-4.asp

https://www2.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/file/1385BfBfEki.pdf

Eipviongll (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)