Talk:Tenzin Ösel Hita

Whereabouts

The lukewarm-dishwater statement

Lama Osel's precise current whereabouts are less well-known.

should be replaced, but only with a sentence that is not cryptic in its meaning.

• The only logical reading for "less well-known" that is supported by its context is "less well-known than it was when it was relatively well known that he was at the high school." If that's what's meant, say it more directly. If it means something else, say what else.
• What about his whereabouts is verifiable? Is the intimation that he is reasonably verifiably still in Canada (e.g. bcz he keeps renewing his visa)? That he is reasonably verifiably still in BC, bcz he keeps using his provincial medical benefits?
• What is meant by "well known"? (BTW, "well-known" is used only when nothing but other adjectives intervene after it and before the noun it modifies.) Is it verifiable that anyone else knows his current residence? That he didn't go off in retreat to a cave, and get stabbed to death by the confused hooker his compassion led him to try to enlighten, or have carnal knowledge of, and that no one who knows who he was knows he's dead? Or no one realizes that he and the hooker gave up their respective callings & are living in Pago Pago?
• Is it verifiable who else knows his current residence?
• I've no direct knowledge of how well known his whereabouts are, so my saying on my own authority "his current whereabouts are less well-known" (than whatever) is not credible. Is anyone verifiably, or even plausibly, qualified to say he's not living in a specific monastery in Dharamsala, or in a specific Chinese prison, and that those who say so don't know what they're talking about? If so, who?
• Why is whatever is being conveyed encyclopedic? Is this usual or unusual for such figures? (It should be indicated which.) Is there evidence anyone cares if journalists wanting to interview him can't confirm that it he, and not his handlers, who don't want him interviewed? Is there any appearance that his accessibility by would-be disciples is less than is typical?

In short, what is the removed material supposed to mean, literally and substantively?
--Jerzy•t 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Jerzy, I get the impression that that one sentence is a big issue for you. I thought it was a good sentence in the circumstances. Wish you had opened the discussion before you deleted it. Johnfos 07:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In the course of revising the FPMT article, I noticed that Lama Osel is no longer mentioned on the official site. As recently as 2005, the site projected that he would become the organization's spiritual director after completing his monastic education (whatever that might mean--a geshe degree?). Am I right in surmising that Lama Osel's life has not been going according to the FPMT's plan? 218.167.160.43 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

seems like the kid just wants to live his own life. but without the 'i HATE everyone and everything that was in my life before now' that would have been part of such a statement in the '60s or 70s. i guess times change. good for him for not being emotionally blackmailed into a life he doesn't want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.127.10 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation

Regarding the change around the use of the term reincarnation, I would suggest that the original wording was fine. There is actually considerable scientific research supporting the idea of reincarnation. Please see Reincarnation research. Again, I think it would have been better if there had been some discussion before the change was made. Johnfos 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The term reincarnation would not be fine in relation to other wikipedia articles on the subject. The main article on Reincarnation suggest use of the term "rebirth" to be preferred in buddhist contexts. However, this article also mention the term "tulku", and the wikipedia article for Tulku suggest the word "emanation" over rebirth. While all this is kind of confusing, the book "Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" by Sogyal Rinpoche simply use the term "incarnation". I don't want to edit any of these articles, but if someone with more insight in this subject could edit these articles to make them fit in relation to each other, would be very much appreciated!

Best Regards, Henrik of Sweden 80.216.196.239 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Link

This is now a [1] standing by itself in the Links section, with no description. Surely we can do better than this. If no one objects, I will add a description, so the item can be sensibly included in the list of Links. Johnfos 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have made this change now. Johnfos 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminder re: sources

To whoever added the note about Osel being at university "now": (1) Please state your source for this. Unfortunately, this cannot be based on hearsay or personal knowledge. (2) Please be sure to say what "now" means, e.g. by adding (as of 2009) or what have you. 210.60.55.9 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

"Hita elaborated on his personal beliefs, saying that there are souls and reincarnation "or otherwise life would be pointless"," I searched for a long time for this information on the sources provided but could not find it anywhere. Can this line be removed? Lixingxian (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)lixingxian

User:Shenpen removed the controversy section completely. Don't you think it might be better to let the readers see all of the articles and make their own conclusions? The sources on both sides seem credible. Others will see the Guardian and other media sources anyway, so why not show the sources here. It is not hearsay sources. I think the controversy section should be put back so that all can see both sides of the controversy, including the FPMT response. Theravada1 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy should not be removed, and attempts to do so appear highly suspicious. More information may however be added as it becomes available, and the story unfolds. Time will tell who is doing the spinning. No doubt Hita will find himself pressed for elaboration / clarification.

I am reading the Babylon piece right now. Wisdom Pub. claims El Mundo exerpted this. True? Dawud (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"It should be noted that many lamas leave monastic life to pursue a lay life, which is actually required for certain tantric practices."

This is totally 100% irrelevant in this case, because (1) this is not a tradition within the Gelug school, and never has been. and (2) it is not the case with Hita in this instance. He is NOT a lay Lama, nor is he a tantric teacher. So this piece of theological apology for his decision to leave has to go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.125.38 (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)