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.
Qs about the Dalai Lama
I was just wondering (and I apologise for my ignorance), does HH the Dalai Lama automatically qualify as a Buddha. Like from the day he's born? Or does he have to follow the path to Buddhahood each time he's incarnated?
Also, if the current incarnation does not manage to return to Tibet before he dies, will he be reincanated outside Tibet, still in exile? How do you think the Chinese authorities would deal with a new incarnation? Would it have to be kept secret for his safety?
Many thanks
Also, if the current incarnation does not manage to return to Tibet before he dies, will he be reincanated outside Tibet, still in exile? How do you think the Chinese authorities would deal with a new incarnation? Would it have to be kept secret for his safety?
Many thanks
0
Comments
I purposefully left this alone hoping that someone who was more familiar with H. H. the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan Buddhism in general, would answer your questions; however, since there are no immediate replies, I will share with you what I know.
The simple answer is, it all depends on how one personally views the Dalai Lama. For those outside of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and in particular the Gelug tradition, H. H. the Dalai Lama can be anything from a simple monk to a Buddha.
As far as I am aware, the Dalai Lama is considered the head of state and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. Moreover, the Dalai Lama is said to be a manifestation of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, who chose to reincarnate to serve the people.
The reason that it is difficult to give a concrete yes or no asnwer is that the terms "Buddha" and "arahant" are defined differently by the various traditions of Buddhism, especially between the Theravada traditions and the Mahayana traditions.
In the Gelug tradition, Avalokitesvara, or Chenrezig, is sometimes considered to be a Buddha, although elsewhere s/he is considered to be a Bodhisattava. I am not too familiar with all the different Mahayana views, however, so I am unsure myself.
Those who consider Chenrezig to be a Buddha might consider the Dalai Lama a Buddha from birth, since he is a manifestation of Chenrezig. Those who consider Chenrezig to be a Bodhisattva might not consider him to be a Buddha from birth.
As for the rest, I do not know what the Dalai Lama will do before he dies. I do not think that he has to return to Tibet to be reincarnated there, or anywhere else for that matter. Some say that Bodhisattvas can choose where they will be reborn.
After he dies, who knows. After China supposedly kidnapped the Panchen Lama, the person in charge of recognizing the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama, and replaced him with their own, who can say what will happen when that time comes.
I am sure there are others who know more about this situation that I do, and I hope that they add more to what I have said or correct anything that I have said if it is in error, but I hope that I have at least answered some of you questions until then.
Best wishes,
Jason
You never really become anything past human, your mindset just reaches understanding and the mindset called Buddha. Therefore I would say that the HDDL.. may be a reincarnation if you believe in that, thats for you to choose. But he indeed did have to re-learn everything, and as a child i don't think you could have called him a buddha.. not at least til he reached what we all like to repeatedly refer to as 'enlightenment'.. whatever time that was.. certainly not when he was 3 yrs old i would guess.Nyways thats my take
Palzang
Zen there were none.
Nevertheless, on at least one occasion, he has commented about his own rebirth in somewhat 'agnostic' terms. It should be remembered that he was discovered when extremely young and brought up by monks in the Potala and Norbulinka. From earliest childhood, he has been surrounded by the belief that he is a reborn, a tulku, and has the task of manifesting Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvara in the world. He recognises that this creates a mindset which makes it impossible for him to be objective.
Jason's distinctions about a "Buddha" are very important and I have never heard of HHDL or any trained Tibetan Buddhist refer to the Dalai Lama as a Buddha. This is an entirely Western notion, like calling him a "God King".
In fact, of course, whether Tenzin Gyatso is or is not a deliberate rebirth is far less important than how he has led his life and practice, and how he has spoken for his people and brought his particular take on the Dharma to a wider audience than any other Buddhist teacher to date. One day, not far distant now, he will pass away but, like other great 'souls', he will leave behind a rich legacy of words and images. His successor will be uncovered, in whatever manner this is done. The absence of the Panchen Lama will not be crucial, although deeply sad. The State Oracle is free of Chinese control as are many other important lamas. The process which began long before even the first Dalai Lama will continue, as it has in other lineages. Just like Tibetans, we can choose to believe or not.
Personally, I revere His Holiness as my teacher and as an extraordinarily warm, humane person. His name before he was born is no matter to me. The next Dalai Lama, if there is one, does not automatically become Head of State and may never do so. That is in the hands of the people themselves, but I find their method of choosing someone for that role no more (or less) bizarre than the beauty contest that passes for democracy or peculiarities of hereditary monarchy.
Palzang
I am not sure that I agree with you. I find it appropriate for a person who is interested in Buddhism to ask questions regarding Buddhism. I also find it useful for a person to ask questions when they do not know the answers. That is, of course, how we learn. The trick is in finding the right questions to ask, but that requires that we make some mistakes.
Moreover, nobody was arguing about anything. Someone asked questions — questions that I imagine are questions most Westerners who are new to Buddhism would ask — and I simply attempted to answer them to the best of my ability. I find it confusing as well as amusing that you consider this to be idle chatter, but not joking about reading Playboy.
Regards,
Jason
Palzang
Again, I disagree. Asking questions about a spiritual teacher is not the same thing as judging them. Perhaps we simply have different views when it comes to this topic, but I do not believe in blindly following anyone without first knowing something about them, their practice, or their teachings. I do not believe that spiritual teachers are above scrutiny, because as history has shown us, there are those that are unscrupulous to say the least.
I do not consider the Dalai Lama to be unscrupulous based upon my knowledge of him, his practice, and his teachings; nevertheless, a person who has little or no knowledge of him will not have the same criteria with which to make an informed decision. As such, I would encourage anyone to ask questions about a spiritual teacher if they are interested in learning more about them in order to make their own decisions about following them.
I believe that it is fair for a practitioner to investigate a spiritual teacher if they are going to place their faith and trust in them, especially to protect themselves against unscrupulous charlatans that prey upon sincere spiritual seekers. I also believe that just because a spiritual teacher is well known or even famous does not mean that they are the "real deal", and a healthy skepticism is an acceptable precaution. Heedlessness is not a virtue.
Regards,
Jason
Palzang
Then might I ask where and by whom such a judgement was made in this thread?
Regards,
Jason
metta
_/\_
Palzang
Well, it`s my understanding that Avalokiteshvara has very many incarnations, bodies, emmanations, etc. all at the same time. If HHDL is Avalokiteshvara that doesn`t preclude the possibility that the woman sitting on the bus next to you isn`t Avalokiteshavara just as much. Does she know she is? Maybe not, but she might be Avalokiteshvara just the same....
By appearances (and appearances can be decieving) HHDL has had to train in the Dharma during this lifetime and does not claim to be supremely enlightened. To be a Boddhisattva is to be not fully enllighened, it goes with the territory. But then again...
Maybe we ought to look at the words attributed to Avalokiteshavara himself on these matters, namely the "Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra." There is no attainment...
Maybe Plazang already made this point.
But the original question is good, nonetheless.
I apologize if I am wrong about this, but I see the poster's initial questions and my answers as being perfectly valid. For one reason, they take into consideration the various definitions given to certain terms by various schools and traditions of Buddhism. I find that addressing these differences is important to a person's overall understanding of Buddhism and limits potential confusion in the long run. Another reason is that they take into consideration a person's own views and discernment.
I did not say whether I thought that he was a Buddha, Bodhisattva, or neither, and I did that intentionally. I left that decision to the person asking the questions because I feel that everyone has the right to make up their own mind about such things. I agree with you that such questions as whether such-and-such is a Buddha, Bodhisattva, or neither are ultimately unskillful, but I think that people still have the right to ask them nonetheless—especially when they are relatively new to Buddhism.
I am not trying to be confrontational with you or disrespectful to the Dalai Lama in any way (and I hope that poor Windwalker is not even more confused or ashamed for asking), but I feel that Buddhism encourages questions. I do not view anything in Buddhism as being taboo. I view Buddhism as a life-long learning experience, and I do not want to discourage people from asking questions. I might not like all of the questions people ask, or all the answers people give, but that is how we learn.
If a person asks these kinds of question, and we as Buddhists feel that they are unskillful and not the right questions to be asking, we should be able to explain why so that the person asking these questions will understand those reasons. That way, they will still ask questions, but they will learn to ask more skillful questions. I think your explanation why this particular question is unskillful a good one, and I think the initial question was fruitful in that it gave us a chance to learn that point of view.
Regards,
Jason
Peace and Bright Blessings xx
Palzang
I have read a bit on HHDL and it was my understanding that he is bodhissatva (sp?). And being that, a bodhissatva does not reach enlightenment for that sake of teaching others.