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.
A "Chosen" Lama says, "No, thanks."
From the article:
The abdication of the anointed tulku is a significant embarrassment to the group he was supposed to head, the powerhouse Foundation for the Preservation of the Monastic Tradition (FPMT), the foremost Tibetan teaching organization in the West. It also challenges Westerners who have adopted Buddhism to find more sophisticated ways of understanding its magical side.
My comment to this would be to add: "... if possible."
Also from the article:
Tulkus often inherit considerable wealth and influence, and powerful monks will jockey to place their own candidates. The political needs of their lineage also figure. And sometimes the consensus-based system doesn't yield a clear winner: Tibetan history crackles with bloody battles between rival claimants or their camps.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903076,00.html
Thurman's explanation near the end of the article demonstrates that pretty much anything can be explained, if we make enough unquestioned assumptions.
Why did I just drop that piano on my toe? To show you the healing efficacy of four-letter words, that's why!
The abdication of the anointed tulku is a significant embarrassment to the group he was supposed to head, the powerhouse Foundation for the Preservation of the Monastic Tradition (FPMT), the foremost Tibetan teaching organization in the West. It also challenges Westerners who have adopted Buddhism to find more sophisticated ways of understanding its magical side.
My comment to this would be to add: "... if possible."
Also from the article:
Tulkus often inherit considerable wealth and influence, and powerful monks will jockey to place their own candidates. The political needs of their lineage also figure. And sometimes the consensus-based system doesn't yield a clear winner: Tibetan history crackles with bloody battles between rival claimants or their camps.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903076,00.html
Thurman's explanation near the end of the article demonstrates that pretty much anything can be explained, if we make enough unquestioned assumptions.
Why did I just drop that piano on my toe? To show you the healing efficacy of four-letter words, that's why!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Lama Yeshe was cool. The coolest. :cool:
Palzang
My situation at the moment is that I've just finished finals week, tests have been graded, and tomorrow I start inputing scores into the computer ... after that, I finish packing, do some traveling, check out my new campus, and then do some more traveling ... in about six weeks or so I can get into my “normal” routine again ... but I have this afternoon off, so maybe we can spend a little time parsing through this mess and see if we can get some kind of handle on this story before I hit the dusty trail.
So, please pardon me if my research appears to be hasty and incomplete. There's a reason for that: it appears to be hasty and incomplete because it is hasty and incomplete. Hopefully, someone will come along later and fill in the gaps and correct the mistakes.
But before we get into anything, I'd like to preface things with a few words about bias. Bias is inherent to human nature. We can no more escape bias than we can escape having heads. We open our eyes, and we divide the world ... tall people and short people, friendly people, enemies, strangers ... men and women ... this division occurs automatically, and without making this division we quite literally cannot live ... [try living for a few weeks without distinguishing food and non-food ...]. We are born biased, and we will die biased. So long as some things are closer to us than other things, we will remain biased. In this sense of the word, Siddhartha Gotama was as biased as anyone else ... not one bit more, not one bit less. So long as we are locked in a human body there are simply some things that we see better than others, and there are some things that we know better than others. It's as simple as that. There are no pejorative connotations to this particular usage of bias; it's nothing more than a simple statement of fact.
Where bias gets us into trouble is with one of its most basic divisions: We all tend to divide the world into “us” and “them,” and “us” is always better than “them.” If “we” are not stronger than them, at least “we” are morally superior. The key point here is that an educated person—not even a Buddhist, but any educated person—knows that this category of “us” is, at least to some extent, arbitrary.* “Us” can contain anyone we want it to contain. It can contain a very small group , or “us” could be “Buddhists” and “non-Buddhists,” “teachers” and “students,” “people who wear glasses” and “people who don't wear glasses,” whatever.
As we play with the different ways that we divide the world, we can quite clearly begin to notice how our perceptions of the world change ... and when perceptions change, actions follow. Now, this simple little insight is nothing special. It did not come to me via any sort of great mystical revelation. In fact, it's a commonplace in modern social psychology, and it comes backed by years of methodical research. What I've written above forms the core of an introductory lecture to one of the classes that I teach.
I wanted to preface my remarks about Osel's story because this story quite nicely highlights the fault line in Western Buddhism today, and that is the [arbitrary?] line between those who consider Buddhism to be a lifestyle and those who think of Buddhism as a religion. Another way to look at it is like this: some people have not found the “truth,” but the search for it fill their lives with meaning; on the other hand, others have found the “truth,” and their purpose in life comes from defending it.
My own biases on this point should [hopefully] be pretty clear. I want very much for Buddhism to successfully transplant itself in the West, where [again, hopefully] it will grow and thrive. But I do not think that Buddhism will succeed in the West as a religion. As nearly as I can figure it, a religious belief is a religious belief is a religious belief, and we've got too damn many of them already. We don't need another one.
Sincerity is not the issue. There are sincere believers of every religious and political stripe that you can think of. Goodness is not the issue [what religion doesn't claim to be morally superior?] The issue is really whether or not one can honestly—honestly—question one's own religious dogmas. If the dogma can't withstand the questions, what good is it?
I once attended a lecture given by some religious teacher who claimed that he had received his teachings from some enlightened guru.
I asked him, how did he know the guru was enlightened? Did the guru tell you that he was enlightened, and you believed him, or did you figure it out yourself?
The teacher was smart enough to see the problem. “Well,” he answered, “if he wasn't enlightened, he was certainly very close ...”
... which, of course, is no answer at all.
OK, preface is over; let's get to it.
The bulk of my attention will focus on the Time article that I originally posted. It appears to be the last in a series of releases which apparently started in Spain with Babylon magazine [which I've never heard of before] and El Mundo. I haven't had the time to directly read these articles myself, but hopefully someone will come along later and point out any factual mistakes that I make in omitting them.
The Time article is here:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903076,00.html
In addition to the blog post that Palzang kindly provided us a link to, I also read Osel's letter, which was dated “June 2009,” and was [I would guess] written as a response to the Spanish media. The Time article makes reference to it:
http://facebookbypass.info/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2Fjjj.sczg.bet%2Fgrnpuref%2Fbfry%2F
In addition, I found two articles from the Guardian. The first is dated June 4, 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/tibetan-lama
And the second is dated June 7:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/07/ossel-torres-lama-buddhism
I'm not sure which of these Palzang read ... in fact, for all I know he might have read a third article that I didn't find. Hey, this is slap-dash research, after all.
There's also a Wikipedia entry that has some information about Osel's parents that I thought was pretty interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_%C3%96sel_Rinpoche
Now the object of the game here is to figure out as best as we can what's going on. Which statements are accurate, which statements are obviously biased, and which ones are just plain wrong. Not an easy task. Usually, one comes away from this kind of a project with more questions than answers [and there's no reason to think that this will be any different], but usually one can also establish a few things that are incontrovertible. And, again, there's no reason to think that this will be any different.
So, to the Time article. Let's start with the headline: “When a 'Chosen' Tibetan Lama Says No Thanks.” My first question would be, why are there quotation marks around the word “chosen”? He was either chosen or he wasn't. It's an instant tip-off that this guy isn't going to be very friendly towards Tibetan Buddhism.
Skipping over the first paragraph, the second paragraph comes to the nub of the story: [Osel] “has abandoned his foretold identity. Instead of a Lama, he wants to be a filmmaker ...” Are these two statements true or not? “Obama won the last American election for President.” It doesn't matter if I hate Obama, love Obama, or could care less about Obama. The question is whether or not the statement is true.
So, is it? Well, if it's not true, it should be simple enough to deny. But Osel doesn't do this. Instead, he says, “Personally, my job is to find new ways in which to discover the true nature of our being. There is no separation between myself and FPMT ...” Of course, he also warns us not to take things too literally, and, in this case, I'm certainly not. In an interconnected world, there's no separation between me and the FPMT, either; so the statement is, quite literally, meaningless.
In other words, Osel passed up the opportunity to clearly say, “I affirm that I am the living incarnation of Lama Yeshe” in favor of “I hope that what appears in news print is not taken too literally.” A profound enough statement in it's own right, but it does nothing to resolve my confusion.
And I'm not particularly impressed with “Personally, my job is to find new ways in which to discover the true nature of our being.” I have a colleague who is [seriously] attempting to find mystical oneness with the universe via water polo. Wow! Just think of it! A new way ... why? Didn't the old ways work? It strikes me as being an ego problem more than anything.
Anyway, the Time article [via El Mundo] goes on to quote Osel as saying, “I was taken away from my family and put in a medieval situation in which I suffered a lot. It was like living a lie.” Well, did he actually say that or not? Now, it's quite possible that he wishes that he hadn't said it, or that he was misquoted. After all, we've all said things that we later regret. But did he say it or not? And if not, why not clearly set the record straight?
Then, from the Time article we get this: “Britain's Guardian then added the delicious factoid that at one point the only people Hita saw were Buddhist monks and Richard Gere. Last Monday, a statement attributed to Hita appeared on the FPMT website calling the press reports "sensationalized," and insisting "there is no separation between myself and FPMT." Still, his confirmation of his career change in the same posting in fact suggests a major rift.”
I have some problems with this paragraph. First, why is the Guardian factoid “delicious”? A fact is a fact is a fact. They don't come in flavors. It would be delicious in this case only if you took some sort of perverse delight in discovering that someone's social life had been confined to Buddhist monks and Richard Gere.
Furthermore, the article provides no time-frame, leaving the mind to imply whatever it wants to imply ... and the implication is that Osel was held in some sort of involuntary confinement broken only by an occasional joke from Richard Gere. This is an incredibly misleading impression ... hey, from time to time this past semester the only people I saw were 25 beautiful, young nursing students. Never mind that we all kept our clothes on, and we all left the room when the bell rang ... [just thought I'd add that “delicious” little factoid].
But, clearly, the author's bias is showing here.
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that the “factoid” that the author was building on: “As a child, he was allowed to socialise only with other reincarnated souls. It sounds like a game for a long train journey. "If you could be stuck in a cave with 10 reincarnated souls ..."
I am assuming that, in this case, they were fellow recycled lamas rather than Cleopatra, Lassie and Hitler. But Richard Gere was there. Richard Gere had the cave next door. Those must have been some incredible street parties.” I'm assuming that is, in turn, was built on one of the articles from the Spanish media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/07/ossel-torres-lama-buddhism
And, again, this is one of those things that would be very easy to clarify, but, again, Osel doesn't clarify it. All he says is “There were times in India when it was hard to accept the destiny. Being treated differently, and feeling apart. But that experience was really good and I so appreciate it.”
http://facebookbypass.info/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2Fjjj.sczg.bet%2Fgrnpuref%2Fbfry%2F
So, I'm wondering ... what, exactly, was “hard to accept”? Was he really living in a cage? What was worse, Richard Gere or the plumbing facilities? How was he treated differently? Did people really worship him?
But the key line, “But that experience was really good and I so appreciate it” is conspicuous by it's absence in the Time article. It's another case of clear bias on Time's part, and also a point that Osel might have elaborated on a bit more .... but, maybe we're not supposed to believe it too literally, either.
Time goes on to say that “a statement attributed to Hita appeared on the FPMT website calling the press reports 'sensationalized.'” [This appears on the link that Palzang provided.] I don't know for sure which press reports are being referred to, but if the statement refers to the articles in the Guardian a case could be made that the Guardian has, indeed, exaggerated. But “sensationalized” does not mean “fabricated.” But that is exactly the spin that the FPMT would have you believe: that there is absolutely no factual basis for the story whatsoever. And that is clearly wrong.
Time's paragraph concludes with “Still, his [Osel's] confirmation of his career change ... in fact suggests a major rift.” I, for one, certainly wouldn't characterize this as a “major rift,” suggested or otherwise. The fact that Osel says "there is no separation between myself and FPMT" suggests to me that he's not burning any bridges behind him.
I don't have any problems with the next two paragraphs, although I should mention that I have no idea who Josh Baran is. To my mind, these two paragraphs should be taken quite seriously by all thoughtful Western Buddhists. It seems to me that we really don't need any more romantic ideals. We have more than enough of them already.
“Tibetan history crackles with bloody battles between rival claimants or their camps.” Absolutely.
The best introduction to Tibetan history, bar none, is available free, on-line:
http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft2199n7f4&brand=ucpress
A more complete history is:
http://www.amazon.com/Tibetans-Peoples-Asia-Matthew-Kapstein/dp/0631225749/
And every serious Buddhist really should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Zen-War-Brian-Daizen-Victoria/dp/0742539261/
The last paragraph of Time's article is devoted to Thurman's “explanation,” which I referred to in my original post.
So, what's to learn from all of this?
Osel is now a filmmaker and has put at least some distance between himself and the FPMT, but we shouldn't take anything we read too literally ... he's clearly left the door open for his return. It's caused enough of a controversy for Robert Thurman to put in his two-cents worth.
All of the people have been involved with this story—including the writers and well as the readers—have come with their own biases, and they are leaving with their own biases substantially unchanged. Samsara continues. For me, the big question for Western Buddhists—the challenge to find more sophisticated ways of dealing with the magical side of Buddhism—has been completely ignored in favor of not taking anything we read too literally. After all, that's what the Master said, isn't it?
I am reminded of a story about a long-lost tribe of aborigines who believed that the moon was made of green cheese. And, yes, for them, the moon really was made of green cheese. No doubt about it. I completely agree that that is, indeed, what they believed.
But they were wrong.
* Note: Social categories are not completely arbitrary. If I break my leg I'd rather see a doctor than a plumber.
I personally think what he is doing is great. It's all part of the transition that Buddhism is making into this new world. It's not going to stay stagnant and we're not all going to become Tibetans or Japanese or Indian or whatever. We're going to be American (or whatever country you live in) Buddhists, and Buddhism is going to take on the character of the new lands into which it has arrived. That's what he seems to be up to (again, always dicey to try to postulate about such things). It seems like he is trying to figure out how to get at the the culture into which he was born to be of the most benefit. That's what bodhisattvas do. As for the FPMT, they're fine. They're a strong, excellent organization. They will continue.
So to me it's just much ado about nothing. As someone said, only bad Buddhists get the headlines, and even when they're not being bad, the press will make them seem so in order to sell their product.
Palzang
I think 'consider' or 'evaluate' are more appropriate terms than 'entertain'.
The word 'entertain' has certain and myriad connotations.
:smilec:
However, my evalutation is the boy is not enlightened yet.
:smilec:
I'll fall back on Eddie Bernays' definition of news: “News is anything that juts out of the usual routine and evokes a response.” If Osel had remained with the FPMT, it certainly wouldn't be news.
Let me modify that a bit before I heartily agree with you. I find it pointless to try to figure out the motives of anyone. It is possible—although sometimes difficult—to come to factual agreement about another person's actions, but to ascertain motives is quite another matter.
Suppose “Jones” killed someone. Why? If Jones said, “Because he was trying to kill me,” this might well be a credible answer, but, still, we can never be completely sure.
To the best of my ability, I have limited myself to Osel's actions [and this includes the things that he said], and, although I have noted his inaction at certain points, I don't think I've tried to ascribe to him any motivation. Read carefully, though; I might have slipped, and if so I will gladly apologize. I'm as prone to errors as anyone.
Nonetheless, the question of whether or not something actually happened certainly seems valid to me, and, in this case, one that's worth pursuing. Without an honest attempt to figure out what's what, these kinds of discussions tend to degenerate into a “he said, she said” kind of argument which generally goes nowhere.
To me it makes perfect sense to make the effort to separate facts from spin.
Refer back to the question I posed the religious teacher in my earlier post. I'll admit to being biased, but I kind of thought that it was a good question, coming off the cuff as it was.
And, frankly, I thought that the teacher's response was pretty good, too. He evaded the question so well that no one even noticed.
Of course, the people who recognized him as an enlightened being might have made a mistake, too. One must at least entertain the possibility that they actually did.
Of course, to actually entertain that possibility, for a true believer, is another matter. It's always frightening when we step out of the fold for the first time, but the experience is ultimately liberating. To slightly twist the words of Eric Maisel, to even seriously ask that question is not so far, but still it “is a vast distance, because you are giving up a system of knowing, with all the comforts that come with gongs and chimes and incense and singing bowls, for personal knowing, with all the doubts and fears that come with self reliance.”
Yet, how many people have ever made genuine spiritual progress by staying in their comfort zone?
If it's all the same to you, I'll hold on my vote of confidence until the movie comes out.
The nub of the matter. To repeat myself: the big question for Western Buddhists—the challenge to find more sophisticated ways of dealing with the magical side of Buddhism—has been completely ignored.
It's by no means an easy question to answer.
My best guess—and I will certainly agree with you that this is dicey—but my best guess is that religious believers won't touch this question with a ten-foot pole because once the magical side of Buddhism is admitted, one can find no clear demarcation between Buddhism and mystical New Age nonsense.
So the question remains hidden away, like the crazy aunt in the closet that no one wants to talk about.
I have no doubt that they are a strong organization and that they will continue. And, hopefully, so will you! And, with any kind of luck at all, so will I ... but not until after another prolonged absence. [I'm taking a break from packing at the moment].
So now, Palzang, I will [graciously, if I do say so myself] offer you the opportunity to have the last word!
Have a good summer, and I looking forward to our next conversation!
And, before I forget, one more book that I would highly recommend to any serious Buddhist:
http://www.amazon.com/Madmans-Middle-Way-Reflections-Modernity/dp/0226493172/
“... in order to sell their product”?? You know, I've always considered it a little dicey to ascribe motivations to others ...
[Sorry! I tried to resist that one! I really did!! ... Take care, Palzang! Have a good summer!]
Fortunately, your evaluation doesn't mean too much so we're even :cool:
When I mentioned the Lama Osel controversy to Lama Purbhu Tashi, who was declared a tulku and later renounced the title, he said that Osel should have meditated more on compassion. So I'll leave it at that.
In the Zen tradition we clearly don't emphasise such things not because it is not possible or part of our world, but because as with most things, it is not yet the point.
All students have enough to be distracted with already - look around.
In my very limited experience however, what's more important is what we do and choose now, eternally so. Our past, whatever that is or may have been, informs us all to a degree of the now - but that is not the defining moment or condition for whom and what we are today.
Ergo, I don't think that such things are pivotal myself. Look around and as the good Lama says, choose compassion. If possible. Or as we like to say in the Zen traps, practice, practice, practice. Which can then allow for a more natural and genuine blossoming, if it is to be.
Obviously just my bias. _/\_
May he live long, and live well /\
So when I hear of Osel out exploring this new world to see how he can best fit into it, I have no problem whatsoever and am actually very happy to see it happen. I have to admit that when he was originally recognized I wondered how he would fit into the traditional Tibetan world into which he was thrown. It's obvious it wasn't where he needed to be, so I am happy to see him move into his own.
As for the nitpickers and doubters, I truly could care less. The opinions of ignorant sentient beings are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, to quote an old saw.
Palzang
Unless you're completely past ignorance, your pretty much talking about what you just said.
Which was exactly my point.
Palzang
Secondly, the 'years of methodical research' are set in far older methods of so-called psychology.
Namely Buddhism.
I believe this precedes what you practice by several thousand years.
So what you teach is already taught.
Thanks anyway.....
Quite sad this is my first post as I enjoy reading most discussions here.
I'm sure you understand that we frequently have problems with new members who join with no intention to contribute and rather seek to use our site as nothing more than a platform for self-promotion. Some spam is readily identifiable, other times it is more insidious. Fede's instinct here may or may not have been right, but I don't think Kikujiro's tone was an appropriate way to address the issue. That said, I'm also not sure that deleting the post was the best way to respond to Kikujiro's response
Forum moderation is something no one is ever done learning (myself included) and I thank you for your feedback to help us continue to work on the balance. I also invite gotorightway123 to continue posting so that we can better interpret their intentions, as we always hope that our first impressions are mistaken when they are unflattering.
If you have further concerns or comments about this, again, please don't hesitate to contact me privately.
Oh I did, it saved me from looking like an ass.
He was satisfied and concurred deletion of his post had been appropriate.
Perhaps before rash judgements and reversals are made, someone could run it by me?
many thanks!
I mean...
My bad
Turns out Fede was so efficient that gotorightway123's spam was already cleared by the time you or I saw this thread.
//edit: Though it hardly matters in this case since it was an old discussion revived by a probable spammer.
We're glad to be able to respond to any issues anybody brings up.
Sometimes it's better done through PMs. At others, it might be generally beneficial to discuss it on forum.
It depends entirely on the matter and/or situation.
Lincoln and I live on different parts of the globe.
We're governed by nearly-opposite time-zones, so occasionally, it's difficult for us to confer at mutually agreeable times to discuss a situation, before acting upon it.
This is a pure case of miscommunication, and I'm delighted to say it's been resolved.
we're actually quite liberal here, and not as cavalier as some sites about banning, suspending admonishing or punishing... and we do try to keep things in perspective and context.
Common social rules apply.
Respect, politeness, courtesy dignity and consideration for the views of others.
Insults, (veiled or otherwise) and veiled sarcasm are actively discouraged, and spam - well, it's great with salad cream, but not in here, thanks!!
I think we're probably done here, so unless the main topic crops up again, and the discussion continues, i think we can wrap this up!:D