Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Minnesota 9 year-old recognised as tulku
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
What do you make of this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jalue-dorje-tibetan-buddhism_us_57b4bcf5e4b034dc73255070
0
Comments
I have been following his story for years as he is somewhat local to me. It is quite interesting. I have mixed feelings. I find the process interesting, but I am not so sure about how much choice he gets, and even if he his choosing whether it truly is his choice or he is pressured. It's interesting how much he learns and the maturity he seems to have about his position. Raising 3 boys I can't imagine doing something like this. But they live within one of the biggest Tibetan populations in the US. I wonder what my teacher thinks of it, I have never asked. They live in the same community.
Here is a local article about him from a few years ago. From local news, who have been updating his story the past 5 years or so
A video news story: http://video.startribune.com/minnesota-boy-believed-to-be-first-lama-reincarnate/135345383/
The first story about him from 2011 http://www.startribune.com/2011-four-year-old-believed-to-be-first-minnesota-born-lama-reincarnate/135804688/
An update from this year: http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-s-first-little-lama-studies-buddhist-faith-and-loves-pokemon/377592221/#1
Well, I'll say this, he seems to be positively thriving on it...!
Posters who have been around here probably remember the topic of forcing children into the celibate life of a monk based on some belief that an old monk is actually inside the child is a hot button of mine. It really doesn't matter that the press releases tell you the child is happy and such an advanced spiritual being and all that. What do you expect the parents and monks to say? Of course they manage what you see. The Duggars painted a picture for the camera of a happy, well adjusted family also. What is true no matter how you excuse it is, this is not a normal life for anyone.
The life of a monk should be a sacrifice and duty taken on by an adult with the full realization of what he (or she) is giving up, not something forced upon a child. That's all I have to say about that. My sincere apologies if I have offended any Tibetan Buddhists. I don't mean to. But I hope you rethink this entire custom.
In principle I agree with you @Cinorjer.
As a follower of Tibetan Buddhism, I have no problem with kids being recognised but you would think they should have the opportunity to grow up as a kid then choose to pursue this calling or not.
Yes. It's the analogy of voting. You don't decide your newborn is a Republican/Democrat/Conservative/Labour/Liberal/Insert other Political parties here supporter, when they're two.
So "Baptism" into any religion prior to their being able to make their own minds up, is also an illogical premise.
Some good points guys, has anyone had a normal life? What is the gold standard?
I would suggest child nurturing takes many forms and as @Cinorjer intimates, we might consider being grabbed by the Tulkus, child indoctrination. To a degree none of us escape our cultural roots.
Steven Segal bought himself a tulkudom. So it is an arbitrary process. I do prefer my teachers to speak english as my Tibetan got as far as mistaking my mother for a horse. Tibetan for horse and mother is the same word but it depends on your breathing whether you are addressing an equine or mother being ...
I feel we should be kind to our grown up and youthful, whether Tulkus, Priests, Republican Billionaires or perhaps even big fish (though that might be a little extreme).
Would I take spiritual advice from a nine year old? Sure, if it was good.
I'd say that the spiritual life is better appreciated from the vantage point of at least a few decades, and think that children should be allowed to play, fool around with girls and make mistakes before being subjected to religion of any sort. I think of all the Muslim and Christian kids conditioned into all kinds of visions of hell and heavenly reward, and feel it's awful.
But as @lobster said, none of us escape (the scars of) our cultural roots. You will get somebody's crazy opinions stamped onto impressionable young minds. Luckily these days the chances of freeing yourself are better than five hundred years ago, the value of rebelling against one's background should not be underestimated, I think it's an essential step.
The true spiritual life, as far as I'm concerned, is where you yourself have taken your destiny in your hands, have cleared the decks of all the conditioning you could reach, and have decided for yourself how to proceed. If you then decide for a time to walk the path of a Christian, a Sufi or a Buddhist it is with open eyes and a clear perspective on what you need in this life. And that's especially true for major life commitments such as monkhood.
So from that point of view I'm not so sure if these Tibetans are doing the kid any favours, Tulku or not. Certainly expecting him to be raised as a monk seems, hmm, like a harsh burden for the little guy.
I think it's two questions:
Is he good at it?
Is it good for him?
Yes, I don't disagree @Cinorjer nor take offense. There are quite a few Tibetans who don't subscribe to the tulku idea any longer. But at the same time, I try to keep in mind that what I think is the ideal way for a child to grow up is based on my experience in a culture much different from theirs. I was not forced into spiritual servitude or anything, but I was forced into a lot of things I didn't believe in. Even upon telling my parents I didn't believe in it, they felt strongly about "injecting" morals and values, as do most parents still. While I wasn't sent to a monastery, it was still unpleasant and I found it tooth and nail and got no where. It lead to a lost of wasted time in my life trying to figure out who I was, which I suspect is something a lot of us go through. I don't know if that is better or worse.
I do think that sometimes we do kids a disservice by treating them like kids for TOO long sometimes. When you look back on history, kids who were teenagers were making big life decisions pretty early. Now we treat our kids like they can barely make a decision on what to eat for dinner without us to tell them until they are 25, and then we are mad when they don't know how to do anything for themselves. So I don't think in the US we have a very good balance there, either. Not saying decided a 4 year old can be a spiritual leader is ideal either, lol. But maybe it's not so bad. I do worry they are so "brainwashed" that they believe it is their choice when it is not. But that happens to all of us, too. I literally got dragged to church kicking and screaming as a 13-14 year old, despite telling my parents when I was 7 that it wasn't for me. They wouldn't accept it and thought making me go eventually it would sink in. My mom is still offended that I 'reject' her beliefs.
I do agree that religion, politics, even values and morals wherever a person gets them from, should be a choice. I do not raise my children in Buddhism. We do talk about it, they see me meditate and they participate some. But we also talk about other religions and they can make a choice when it is time. My oldest leans to Buddhism, my 14 year old is atheist (I think almost every 14 year old is, lol) and my 8 year old just lives life, and I think he probably has it more right than the rest of us.
I live in the same area as him and I've seen him at some of the large religious ceremonies the Tibetans have. He sits up near the front on a slightly raised seat and wears robes, though I don't think he is a monk at this time, he's being raised mostly as any kid would. I haven't met him but from what I've observed he seems like a regular kid though during the ceremonies he can't go hide in the closet and play games on the tablets with the other Tibetan kids.
The Dalai Lama's oldest brother's autobiography ("Tibet Is My Country") is very interesting and revealing in this respect. He was chosen at an early age as the reincarnation of a local lama and head of the regional monastery, but he wasn't sent there until age 9, and spent his first few years there playing, before being required to commit to studying. Here are the points that struck me about his experience, which reveal a lot about his perspective on the tulku question:
He clearly states that the tulku gig is the profession his parents chose for him, so he made an effort to do well, to please them.
At no point did he mention anything about past-life memories or his studies coming easily to him. He was just a normal, ordinary kid in that regard.
He missed his family terribly the entire time he was in the monastery (years, until the family moved to Lhasa), and his father came to visit him often. His mother would come when she could, and when she couldn't, she sent him baked treats. Sometimes the entire family would come to visit. This tells you how difficult it is for most kids, and most are not allowed visits from relatives.
He marveled at the wealth he had come into overnight, simply by going to live at the monastery as successor to the previous abbot. He found a number of ways to spend it, including organizing a 6-month caravan to Lhasa to join his family (this included bringing along rifles to shoot game to feed himself and servants along the way), and a long "pilgrimage" (in fact a tourism jaunt, as doesn't report visiting any sacred sites) to India and China, where he meets Chiang Kai-Shek.
He abandoned his station as head of the monastery when the family moved to Lhasa, as if it meant nothing to him, over the strong protests of high lamas there.
When offered an opportunity to relocate to the US, he takes it, and marries a Tibetan teenager he meets while teaching in Seattle (at which point he's in his 30's). He settles down to married life and a career teaching at the U of Indiana, without any more thought to the spiritual life, or any responsibilities he left behind in Tibet.
Two other brothers of the DL were named tulkus, and went to live at the same monastery until the move to Lhasa. These brothers don't seem to be under any illusion as to whether they're incarnations of anyone special. To them, it's a job to which they were appointed, and for which they have to study for a few years, nothing more.
The current Karmapa talks about his experience being raised to be the Karmapa in the monastery with some sadness and pain saying he felt boxed in and found the pressure difficult, saying he was never praised for doing well since he was the reincarnation of the Karmapa and it was expected for him to do even better.
That being said he has a very broad and compassionate perspective, my impression of him is that he genuinely wants very much to use his position to be of the most help to others he can be. I think in spite of his difficulties being raised he really embraces his role.
The one major plus I see to this kind of thing is that he will forever be a boy who will live in service to others, and I don't think that is a bad thing. But, I do think a person should make that choice for themselves otherwise doubts, regrets and so on can result.
Is he ready to live a life of service? Some children are, but others would have been far happier as B-list rock'n'roll stars. And I'm not sure if you can tell that at such a young age, it's often the teens when rebellion does or doesn't start to happen (unless you're like me and you choose to rebel when you're 40
).
I'm sure for Tibetan parents it seems a great bargain for the child, a comfortable life of learning rather than herding yaks, and a potentially powerful position to inherit. For the advisors it might also be a good deal, a pliable youngster to mold into what they think the monastery needs.
It's interesting to note that HHDL (for whatever reasons one may consider) has declared that he may well be the last incarnation of his lineage....
It will be interesting to see if he sticks with the role longer term, and what he makes of it. Who knows, one day he might convert to Dudeism.
Maybe to deny the Chinese a subversion opportunity.
That's why I put 'for whatever reasons one may consider'. Those reasons aside, he has decided himself that he is not going to reincarnate.
It seems reincarnation is a choice, but re-birth isn't....?
When do we look for the next HHDL? When the one we have is 30? Or 80? Or do we wait till he dies, so we can see where his spirit went, or more properly in whom it is reborn? Theoretically we should be able to say "Look! There it is! In that baby!" Can we really do that? DO we really do that? I think our current HHDL is worried that his spirit would be better off permanently extinguished than in the hands of those political schemers. Cynical? Does he actually believe this spirit is even real? Or is he willing to use his authority to make proclamations based on political prediction and calculation?
But what if this kid really does have the gift? Do the people around him accurately and selflessly recognize the gift, and their resultant responsibility? Are they to be thanked?
When the current HHDL leaves message of where to look. if he ever does....
Do you actually know how (as far as Tibetan Buddhism is concerned) this works? it doesn't sound as if you're very informed....
It doesn't quite work like that, but to an extent, yes....
First of all, it's not a 'spirit'.... Honestly, read up on this, ok?
The Dalai lama can choose how to manifest and through which medium. Therefore he can choose, for whatever reason, how his reincarnation process goes. Or doesn't. Of course he believes the reincarnation process. It goes back through 13 Dalai lamas before him! It's part and parcel of why (he believes) he is here!
What's the point of this question? What does it have to do with his recognition?
Who was Beethoven's music teacher?
Even the greatest among us learns from someone, but only if they are willing. Maybe I am ill informed. But do you really believe that? Is "Honestly, read up on this, OK?" coming from someone who is willing? Can the best informed learn from the least informed?
My broader point is in the constellation of the questions, not in the spectrophotometric details of a star you're familiar with in studious detail.
Aside form his father, he had several, including Haydn and Saglieri.
Yes, I think you are, of this particular process.
Of course. Could you be specific in what you're trying to teach me? You're asking an awful lot of questions, to which I'm responding, but it seems, not to your satisfaction....?
>
....I'm sorry.... WHAT?
OK.
Carry on.
So the past 4 posts have been a nonsense and a waste of my time? Thanks for that....
Historically, the record is a confusing muddle, but the general consensus now is that Tibet went through a series of Kings but none were able to establish a lasting dynasty. Then the Mongols invaded in the 10th and 11th century and, not interested in appointing another King whose descendents would one day rebel and claim the country as his own, chose the Buddhist priests to administer the country and collect tribute, backed by the Mongol army. In 1247 the current Mongol leader made Sakya Lama temporal ruler of Tibet, formalizing the role as Priest-King. These Lama rulers got so bad that at one point the people actually rebelled and in 1350 overthrew the current Lama ruler and Tibet was once again secular. However, the Mongols remained an occasional invading force and meddled in their politics. Sort of how the USA liked to mess around with South American countries in the 20th century.
By the 1600s Tibet was once again in a civil war between secular rulers of various states and the Mongol ruler got tired of it, sent in his army, and re-established the Priest-King. They chose the Dali Lama to administer the country for them as the head ruler and once again send tribute, but there were other temples with their own Lamas and they also helped administer the government. When the Mongols finally met their end, Tibet continued with the Buddhist rulers because that beat the alternative, which was back to constant civil war.
What does this have to do with reincarnation and the temple searching for a child to replace their Lama when he dies? Because Buddhist priests are celebate, so they don't have heirs to assume the throne. That means the powerful advisers would have to fight each other to decide who rules next. Temples would go to war against each other and civil war would return with the Lamas fighting instead of Princes. It's an elegant solution the monks invented to the temple itself descending into internal discord as various factions fought for power. Instead, they search for a boy that can be molded into the role, while the existing monks continue to rule as regents. The throne is never vacant. The Lama has just stepped out briefly to acquire a new body. But it's no longer needed. Tibet will never again be another theocracy ruled by Priest-Kings.
The entire "Lama reincarnated and raised in the temple" custom has much more to do with the need to provide a secular ruler than a spiritual one. After all, if a Bodhisattva reincarnates, he's going to help humanity no matter what sort of life he lives. Maybe he's going to be a great doctor and discover a cure for a disease, or a great politician and be elected president and bring peace that way. He doesn't need to be raised a monk to fulfill his destiny.
There's a Tibetan tulku from Canada who did just that; he gave up the tulku gig to become a rapper, and achieved some fame for it. He even composes raps about how lonely it is to be a child tulku, and what a cruel fate it can be.
"I had a hard time," he says, "not from what I was given, but more from what was taken from me." It doesn't take a Dylanologist to decipher the lyrics to his song "Lost and Found": "All is gone, all is gone, I miss my mama's kiss/ Tryna make a child grown/ By leaving him all alone/ Destined to be on a throne/…Why didn't you, why didn't you stay?"
Read more at ONTD Political: http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9885309.html#ixzz4IwVR1lGY