Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Dalai Lama

shanyinshanyin Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
edited December 2009 in Buddhism Basics
If the Dalai Lama is the 14th reincarnation of Avalokitsvara; that's doesn't take him back to the time of the Buddha. Didn't Avalokistvara live in Buddha Shakyamuni's time?

Comments

  • ManiMani Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Hi shanyin.

    HH Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14th reincarnation of the first Dalai Lama, Gedun Drupa. here's a link...

    http://www.dalailama.com/page.51.htm

    I think they are considered "emanations" of Avalokiteshvara.

    :)
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    If the Dalai Lama is the 14th reincarnation of Avalokitsvara; that's doesn't take him back to the time of the Buddha. Didn't Avalokistvara live in Buddha Shakyamuni's time?

    Dalai Lamas are glorified Tulkus, emanations from masters of the past. Quite frankly, after Steven Segal became one, I lost my faith in the concept.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited November 2009
    Actually, he's a very nice man, and he himself didn't feel worthy of carrying such a title, which is why he has not 'acted' upon it.
    One thing I find admirable about him, is that he never compromises his Buddhist practice by acting the 'baddie' role.
    Unlike Richard Gere.....
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Huh? Steven Segal might not play the "bad guy," but every movie of his concerns hostility and violent dominion, almost an antithesis to Buddhist practice. Have you seen them? (I used to love them as a kid...)
  • edited November 2009
    federica wrote: »
    Actually, he's a very nice man, and he himself didn't feel worthy of carrying such a title, which is why he has not 'acted' upon it.

    Anderson Cooper was on a talk show (I don't know which one) and told a story about Segal that made him sound like a total douche bag. After seeing a couple clips of his new reality show, I can believe it. I agree with NamelessRiver: if Steven Segal holds the title, it's worthless.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” <sup>5</sup> In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. His two previous lama “incarnations” were then retroactively recognized as his predecessors, thereby transforming the 1st Dalai Lama into the 3rd Dalai Lama. This 1st (or 3rd) Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his claim to divinity.
    [...]
    In 1792, many Kagyu monasteries were confiscated and their monks were forcibly converted to the Gelug sect (the Dalai Lama’s denomination). [apparently the succesion of Karmapas was held in secrecy]
    [...]
    There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. <sup>15</sup> The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood.
    [...]
    The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released.

    From: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    edited November 2009
    The above link is not a trustworthy source. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Of the lamas I know and respect, some are tulkus, others are not. The measure of a person is what they're like in this life, not in some previous life.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    jinzang wrote: »
    The measure of a person is what they're like in this life, not in some previous life.
    Yes, and this is exactly why the authoritarianism underlying the tulku tradition is problematic.
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited November 2009
    jinzang wrote: »
    The above link is not a trustworthy source. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
    Which specific statements on the page linked to should we not believe?
  • edited November 2009
    RenGalskap wrote: »
    Which specific statements on the page linked to should we not believe?
    the statements in there entirety are biased and completely lack academic research or personal experience.
  • edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    Yes, and this is exactly why the authoritarianism underlying the tulku tradition is problematic.
    this is no different than the children of wealthy/prominent families in our culture.
    they are born with advantages, much like tulkus.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited November 2009
    In answer to the OP, the office of Dalai Lama does not, of course, go back to the time of the Buddha Shakyamuni: Tibet was not Buddhist at the time. The notion of the Dalai as a tulku is significantly more recent, nor is he the oldest tulku lineage.

    One of the most approachable books is Glenn H. Mullin's The Fourteen Dalai Lamas - A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation (Clear Light Publishers. 2001)

    The present Dalai Lama has become very aware of the 'feudal' nature of the old system and has, in as many ways as he can, reformed it. It is, perhaps, one of the benefits that has srisen from the overarching horror of the Chinese aggression. In a single man's life, we have witnessed a move from autocratic theocracy to democracy without losing the spiritual treasure of the bodhisatva ideal.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    The above link is not a trustworthy source. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

    Every source I have seen so far that points out how Tibet was before Chinese invasion goes on about Theocracy, clashes between lineages and serfs. Point me to one that doesn't please.

    In my opinion, if Tibet was not invaded (which was a truly sad thing) we would be going on and on about the lack of human rights in there these days. It's very easy for the Dalai Lama go out and say everything mainstream, and for the monks, who where the ruling class, to say that everything was peachy, but even now he suppresses other people's beliefs - which is, by the way, a violation of human rights.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Every source I have seen so far that points out how Tibet was before Chinese invasion goes on about Theocracy, clashes between lineages and serfs. Point me to one that doesn't please.

    In my opinion, if Tibet was not invaded (which was a truly sad thing) we would be going on and on about the lack of human rights in there these days. It's very easy for the Dalai Lama go out and say everything mainstream, and for the monks, who where the ruling class, to say that everything was peachy, but even now he suppresses other people's beliefs - which is, by the way, a violation of human rights.


    Ah! Is your objection political? If so, HHDL is working hard to reform the Tibetan Government-in-exile. Or is it doctrinaire? In that case, perhaps you could declare your interest.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Ah! Is your objection political? If so, HHDL is working hard to reform the Tibetan Government-in-exile. Or is it doctrinaire? In that case, perhaps you could declare your interest.
    As far as doctrine goes, I am in no position to object to anybody's beliefs. I would be contradicting myself. I personally hold no belief in the Tulku concept and the Avalokiteshvara emanation thing, though. That is how I was trying to respond to the OP.

    As far as politics go, he is not just trying to reform the government as much as he has to, due to the radical change of scenario. And yes I was talking about the whole Dorje Shugden deal (which I don't believe in either).
    The last years brought us forced signature campaigns, in which monks promised to stop propitiating Dorje Shugden in return for obtaining travel documents from the exiled government or to be admitted into monasteries. Last January monks were engaged in weird actions such as swearing in a loud voice to denounce the deity. All contact with those monks that have not followed the ban is forbidden. This implements a de-facto apartheid with signs forbidding monks from entering classrooms, hospitals and shops. They even have to study and dine separately.
    As far as I know he is not in Tibet anymore, he is in India, and Indian Constitution forbids that kind of practice, too bad for him. So you can add my objection is legal, not political or doctrinary.
  • edited November 2009
    As far as doctrine goes, I am in no position to object to anybody's beliefs. I would be contradicting myself. I personally hold no belief in the Tulku concept and the Avalokiteshvara emanation thing, though. That is how I was trying to respond to the OP.

    As far as politics go, he is not just trying to reform the government as much as he has to, due to the radical change of scenario. And yes I was talking about the whole Dorje Shugden deal (which I don't believe in either).

    As far as I know he is not in Tibet anymore, he is in India, and Indian Constitution forbids that kind of practice, too bad for him. So you can add my objection is legal, not political or doctrinary.

    the practiced he banned is VIOLENT! you should do some research on this before you speak on it.
    HHDL is 100% right on this issue and there is no debating the issue.
    if you knew what this practice was you would agree.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    HHDL is 100% right on this issue and there is no debating the issue.
    if you knew what this practice was you would agree.
    Or if I was a Tibetan Buddhist authoritarian. :)

    If you're going to say anything convincing, why say anything at all? Does it feel good?
  • edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    Or if I was a Tibetan Buddhist authoritarian. :)

    If you're going to say anything convincing, why say anything at all? Does it feel good?
    what are you talking about?
  • edited November 2009
    The discussion here seems to have veered off into discursiveness, There is quite enough of that here in samsara. The original post really was a question about the Dalai Lama being an emanation of Chenresig (Avalokiteshvara). Th Buddha of Compassion is very important in the entire Mahayana tradition especially in Tibet and the greater Tibetan community. Compassion and wisdom comprise the aspiration, practice, and fruition of the Mahayana path. Many Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike see the Dalai Lama as the embodiment of those qualities; compassion and wisdom.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    what are you talking about?

    The post I was responding to was a series of assertions founded on an acceptance of Tibetan authority. There was no support for what it claimed beyond "the Dalai Lama said so." The only people that's going to reach is people who already agree with you. It's called "preaching to the choir."
  • edited November 2009
    the practiced he banned is VIOLENT!
    In a BBC interview, the Dalai Lama said he had not advocated a ban

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7421888.stm
    You should do some research on this before you speak on it.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Icansee-1.jpg
  • edited November 2009
    shanyin wrote: »
    If the Dalai Lama is the 14th reincarnation of Avalokitsvara; that's doesn't take him back to the time of the Buddha. Didn't Avalokistvara live in Buddha Shakyamuni's time?

    Well the Buddha lived about 2500 years ago - add 100 years for each of the 14 dalai lamas = 1400. There's a gap of 1000 years. I wonder if this is what shanyin was getting at? Or am I totally off the track? :eek:

    As for the present Dalai Lama, I think he is a wonderful person. This is what he says about the attainment of Nirvana:

    "I myself feel, and also tell other Buddhists, that the question of Nirvana will come later. There is not much hurry. If in day-to-day life you lead a good life, honestly, with love, with compassion, with less selfishness, then automatically it will lead to Nirvana." The Dalai Lama
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Icansee-1.jpg
    That's hilarious!!
  • edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    The post I was responding to was a series of assertions founded on an acceptance of Tibetan authority. There was no support for what it claimed beyond "the Dalai Lama said so." The only people that's going to reach is people who already agree with you. It's called "preaching to the choir."
    i'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
    if people want to know about this practice and why there is a controversy and or a so called ban they should look into the Tibetan histories and go talk to some lama's about what it is.
    They will get a clear idea of what the practice in question represents and what it has been used for.
    Its not a question of just agreeing with what HHDL says, its about actually looking into the situation and coming to an informed conclusion.
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited December 2009
    sukhita wrote: »
    Well the Buddha lived about 2500 years ago - add 100 years for each of the 14 dalai lamas = 1400. There's a gap of 1000 years. I wonder if this is what shanyin was getting at? Or am I totally off the track? :eek:

    correct
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited December 2009
    the practiced he banned is VIOLENT! you should do some research on this before you speak on it.
    HHDL is 100% right on this issue and there is no debating the issue.
    if you knew what this practice was you would agree.

    You should also do some research before you make such uneducated pontifications aswell. :rolleyes:
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited December 2009
    shanyin wrote: »
    If the Dalai Lama is the 14th reincarnation of Avalokitsvara; that's doesn't take him back to the time of the Buddha. Didn't Avalokistvara live in Buddha Shakyamuni's time?

    Nope. It began just after the foundation of the gelugpa tradition.
    And no he's not a reincarnation of avalokitishvara, he's reputed to be an emination although you will find some people who disagree with this as well seeing as the DL has not claimed anything of the sort.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited December 2009
    shanyin wrote: »
    Didn't Avalokistvara live in Buddha Shakyamuni's time?
    No. Well at least, not as a Buddhist.

    :)
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited December 2009
    No. Well at least, not as a Buddhist.

    :)

    You never know DD ;)
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Icansee-1.jpg
    Oh, hold my stomach with laughter. This is the MOST appropriate response of all!
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited December 2009
    RenGalskap wrote: »
    Which specific statements on the page linked to should we not believe?

    Don't believe anything you have not directly experienced for yourself.

    Being an unenlightened, samsaric being, I am fully aware of how alluring it is to believe, or to take someone's word on something ...

    but the Buddha challenged us to find out for ourselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.