Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

People must respect the history of Asia

The 14th Dalai Lama was born in 1935 in Qinghai. The whole Qinghai Province was established and controlled by the Republic of China as early as in 1928. So there was NO such so-called "Qinghai Province of Tibert" during that time when Mr. Dalai was born, and, such saying is still wrong today.

Hope those rumors respect the history of Asia a little bit! (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Dalai Lama was born in Qinghai province of the Republic of China."Dalai Lama claimed all of Kham and Amdo in the Simla Convention of 1913-14 – most of these areas in fact were not a part of its polity for the two centuries preceding the rise to power of the Communists in China in 1949....The term ‘Tibet’ refers to the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas; it does not refer to the ethnic border areas such as Amdo and Kham which were not part of that state in modern times, let alone to Ladakh or Northern Nepal. Until recently, this convention was, as far as I can discern, universally accepted in the scholarly literature" [1] (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are partially correct, although the situation is more complicated than you allow. I have changed it to read . . born in Amdo/Quinhai, which I think is the fairest way to put it. The area is a border region that has always been ruled by local cheiftans, with the overlords changing periodically. It is true that it has not been ruled by the Lhasa government for a long time, but that is not the only way to define "Tibet." The Tibetans there have always called it Amdo, the Chinese have always called it Qinghai, and the article should take note of both since both are relevant.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am correct,the QingHai province was controlled by the Muslim warlord Ma Bufang(马步芳)in the 1920-1940s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaningful autonomy

What is meaningful autonomy? (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Autonomy means "having the right or power of self-government". Meaningful autonomy means having actual autonomy in practice, rather than only nominal autonomy.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any states or territories within a sovereign state in any of the world's countries that have 'meaningful autonomy'? (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Which ones and where? (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page to is to discuss improvements to the article. If you have questions regarding general knowledge, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia reference desk.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Nat, since you promote yourself as one who has a world of knowledge at your finger-tips, could I ask that you expand your 'yes' answer from above? How can it not improve the article if the term 'meaningful autonomy' is clarified by examples of existing models (should any exist)? (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, now I remember you. You're that guy who used to always try to use the talk pages for discussions not really directly related to improving the articles. No, thanks.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I take that that your earlier 'yes' answer is really 'no', that is there is no territory within any sovereign state in this world that has what dl calls 'meaningful autonomy'. And Nat, no I am not that person Nat Krause who always use the talk pages to promote his own views, and not be able to answer questions when challenged. (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not up to par concerning the netiquette in use here, as well as to end this section, may I humbly suggest refering you to for an example of 'meaningful autonomy'. Qwrk (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. The island you refer to comprises 0.49% of the land area of Finland, and was once ceded to Russia. There are similar arrangements in China for Hong Kong and Macau which were once ceded to Britain and Portugal respectively. Tibet was never ceded to any other country, so such an arrangement was not arranged. Despite these, there are features similar to that of Tibet. For example Tibet also has a local autonomous government; Tibetans are not required to join military conscription, and Tibetans are not bound by family planning guidelines. The dl's demand for 'meaningful autonomy' appears to imply that he expects automatically to be the head of the local government without elections and the office is to be held for life followed after his death by an appointee who is supposed to be his reborn incarnation, over and over again. Indeed with 'meaningful autonomy' slavery will be allowed in Tibet despite the fact that it is illegal in the whole of The PRC. In other words, 'meaningful autonomy' is in reality slavery through the back-door. (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Can you specify what changes you are interested in making to the article?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Being a passionate believer of Wiki concensus, freedom and democracy, any changes to be made must be agreed upon, unless it is so obvious. Thus the meaning of 'meaningful autonomy' must be clarified. For example does it mean 'slavery through the back-door' and unelected and unremoveable rulers such as dl? (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, no one cares what your feelings are about the issue. We are not going to add the sentence "An IP Wikipedia editor thinks that the Dalai Lama's desire for meaningful autonomy is a way to get 'slavery through the back-door' in Tibet." Find reliable sources, or shut up about it; this is NOT a forum. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "meaningful autonomy" is never used in the article. This is a non-issue; there is no need to "clarify" language that we are not using. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
...but since you asked, Mr. / as an example, there are over 500 Native American Tribes within the US that have "meaningful autonomy". As the Wiki Native American recognition in the United States states, "They (Native American Tribes) may form their own government, enforce laws (both civil and criminal), tax, license and regulate activities, zone, and exclude persons from tribal territories." That is "meaningful autonomy", by any definition. Do the Tibetan people enjoy this? Nope. The Qing Chinese took it away from them in 1910, and the PRC again in the 1950s. I hope this answers your question. By the way, you'd be taken more seriously if you actually had a WP account and logged-in, rather than posting anonymously. Oh, and you made 7 comments here; don't forget to collect your 35 Mao. Bricology (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Bricology, people will take you more seriously if you remind them how big the Native American territories are now compared to sizes of area the White European stole from them. The Native homelands are nothing but ghettoes where the US government feed the people large amounts of alcohol, allow them to gamble and run prostitution, and making sure they waste their lives by creating social problems. Yes, the Native Americans must be very thankful for the scraps thrown at them by their white masters. Yes, that is "meaningful autonomy". I wonder what would happen if each and everyone of these homelands declared their independence and allegiences from the good old US of A. And yes bricology, the CIA will be recommending you for purple hearts and congressional medals. (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Public domain images


Use at your own will. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are photos not showing?

Two photos in the article are not showing on my computer - one with HH and Mao in 1955 and one of his teaching room in Dharamsala. I have tried all kinds of tricks to get them to show, but nothing seems to work for me. Can anyone please help? And if you can, would you please explain here what was going wrong? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK John, let me start with trying the obvious solutions. Did you empty the cache of your browser [temporary internet files], the browser history and have you restarted the browser and tried again? Do they show up in any other browser than the one that you're using? Do you have another computer to try and access this page and what's the result of that? Qwrk (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure when the links broke, but they're fixed now. Bertport (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama's ethnicity

Someone from an anonymous IP address has just claimed that the Dalai Lama was born a "Han Chinese". This remarkable and unbelievable claim was based on the discussion in Thomas Laird's book (The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, 262), about Takster, the Dalai Lama's home village, and the dialect spoken in the Dalai Lama's home (a local dialect of Chinese).

There are a couple of things the person writing from IP obviously does not understand. First, the Han Chinese are an ethnic group quite distinct from ethnic Tibetans. One does not become Han Chinese by being born in China or speaking Chinese. In fact there are some 55 other ethnic groups (including Tibetans) recognised in China.

Secondly, he or she obviously did not read the whole of the text on p. 262. In particular, the passage which says that in Takster only 2 out of the 17 households were Chinese. There can be no doubt that the Dalai Lama and his family have always considered themselves ethnic Tibetans. As Laird notes (p. 261), "His parents were Tibetan subsistence farmers . . . ." All the family names were Tibetan names - not Chinese.

Additionally, Takster has always been in a border region between China and Tibet - sometimes claimed by one, and sometimes by the other. It is called Amdo by the Tibetans and is now called Qinghai by the Chinese. At least until very recently, the bulk of the population of Amdo/Qinghai were of Tibetan ethnicity.

"The entire region sits along a natural border that has become a political and ethnic boundary line. Until the eighth century, Amdo was inhabited solely by Tibetans, but as they clashed with Mongols and Chinese along the plateau's eastern edge, the area was slowly settled by other ethnic groups. The feeling of political connection between Amdo Tibetans and Central Tibetans weakened, and the dialect of Amdo grew more and more distinct." Laird, p. 262.

So, please, spare us in future from such bizarre, unsupported claims about the ethnicity of HH the 14th Dalai Lama. Yours, John Hill (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the USA his ethnicity would be Asian Pacific. (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please explain - who invented that bizarre and meaningless category? Has anyone ever used such a description in the USA or anywhere else, and, if so - for what possible purpose? At best, some government bureaucrat must have dreamed this up when she or he had nothing else to do at work. John Hill (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Americans did. Another category is of course Hispanics. So if your ancestors were from Spain or Portugual (maybe via Latin/ South America), then you are not a (White) European, but a Hispanic. I suppose Spain and Portugual are in Europe but a lot of their people are not very White, but Moorish. (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Either way, John Hill or the unknown user, it's very simple: on Wikipedia, you only list information from cited sources. Nothing you make up for yourself. That's all, plain and simple. No need to put your own arugments in the article itself at all. I think heathy discussions over here on this page is fine though. Children of the dragon (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


The lead section for a figure like the Dalai Lama should summarize its contents and be, short, fact-oriented, and to-the-point. It should not be a battleground discussing such nuances as his "first language". The section needs serious rescue. Colipon+(Talk) 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the tidbit about his first language, while interesting, does not merit inclusion in the lead. It was Sylvain1972 who last put it there. Maybe he'd like to come back and justify it, or agree to moving it further down. But overall, I don't think the lead of this article is all that bad. What would you like to do to it? Bertport (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree that the "first language" issue is odd for a lead. I doubt we'd accept it in an article about "President John F. Kennedy, who spoke a broken dialect of Massachusetts English as a child," lol. But, some sources on the topic at hand: "Lobsang Samten was only two years older than the Dalai Lama....They already talked to each other exclusively in Lhasa dialect, whereas the other members of the family spoke to each other in the Amdo dialect, and were only gradually accustoming themselves to High Tibetan." (Tibet is My Country, Thubten Jigme Norbu); and, "Though their speech [his father's family's] was still peppered with words and phrases from the ancient Lhasa dialect, they spoke Tibetan in the Amdo dialect, which, since 1910 when the Chinese had reoccupied the area, now contained a strong admixture of Chinese." (Kundun: A Biography of the Family of the Dalai Lama). Suffice to say that Amdo Tibetan with a heavy dose of Chinese could also be referred to in lay terms as a "broken Xining dialect of Chinese." However, the Dalai Lama left home at a very tender age, and if both his mother (the source for Kundun) and older brother (author of Tibet is My Country) refer on multiple occasion to the family's speaking Amdo Tibetan, perhaps that ought to carry some weight.SheilaShigley (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the issue of the Dalai Lama's first language doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it should be included in the body of the text. Sheila Shigley's sources are very interesting, but, nevertheless, in his conversation with Thomas Laird, the Dalai Lama seems to state the facts as he remembers them very clearly (he says describes his first language as "the Chinese language". Laird clarifies: "So your first language ... was a broken regional Chinese dialect, which we might call Xining Chinese. It was not Tibetan. You learned Tibetan when you came to Lhasa." and the Dalai Lama answers "Yes, that is correct ... In other villages, they spoke Amdo Tibetan. But in my village, I don't know why, my parents spoke a broken Xining Chinese"). Taking this together with the two quotations Ms. Shigley provides, the implication is that the Dalai Lama's family were fluent in both Amdo Tibetan and in "broken" Xining Chinese, but they used primarily Chinese rather than Tibetan around the house, so that was what the Dalai Lama learned first as a boy. The Dalai Lama's quotation seems to imply that his parents were unable to speak Amdo Tibetan, but he doesn't actually say that; all he says is that they did speak Chinese. None of the quotations says that they did not speak Chinese. The quotation from Tibet is My Country is referring to the time after the family moved to Lhasa — it does not seem at all surprising that they would feel social pressure to switch to a Tibetan dialect (and eventually to the standard dialect) after their son was enthroned as the ruler of Tibet. It's possible that the Dalai Lama has misremembered the language he spoke as a child, but this seems less likely because he is quite emphatic on this point.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Colipon says that the lead section should be – among other things – "fact-oriented". Well, isn't the Dalai Lama's native language being "a broken Xining Chinese" an established fact? Now, for "the tidbit about his first language" to be in the lead, a prerequisite would be for it to be first of all in the body of the text – which is not the case (apart from a cursory mention in a note). So if the info about the first language is to be removed from the lead, then it should be included in full further down in the page - and not simply moved out of the way.--Christian Lassure (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


Seen heavy POV pushing since months ago. There was no such thing as Amdo Province throughout the first half of the 20th century. It was even Tibet's official position:

"The Chinese Communist troops have invaded the Chinese Provinces of Lanchow, Chinghai and Sinkiang; and as these Provinces are situated on the border of Tibet, we have sent an official letter to Mr. Mautsetung leader of the Chinese Communist Government, asking him to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet"

- Tibetan Foreign Affair Bureau, Lhasa, 1949, quoted from M.C. Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet: The Demise of the Lamaist State, p625

"The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century, and during the Simla Conference of 1913, the thirteenth Dalai Lama was even willing to sign away rights to them"

- Grunfeld, A.T., The Making of Modern Tibet, p245

Let history speaks. MainBody (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Amdo Province is misnomer. Amdo is a region.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

May be England will allow Mercia to become an independent kingdom in the present day England,, but I would doubt it. In the same way, Tibet is a part of China. (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding what

Rodger Kamenetz

-- (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"In a letter to Seder participants, the Dalai Lama wrote, "In our dialogue with rabbis and Jewish scholars, the Tibetan people have learned about the secrets of Jewish spiritual survival in exile: one secret is the Passover seder. Through it for 2000 years, even in very difficult times, Jewish people remember their liberation from slavery to freedom and this has brought you hope in times of difficulty. We are grateful to our Jewish brothers and sisters for adding to their celebration of freedom the thought of freedom for the Tibetan people."

-- (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
But the Tibetan people were enslaved by the Tibetan lamas and "nobles", and not by the Chinese government. In fact the Chinese government freed the Tibetan people from slavery. So the position of Tibetan slavery when compared with the historic Jewish people is quite the opposite; the Jews were not slaves to other Jews, unlike the Tibetan slaves. (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

foreign heads of state theater and other examples exists. The Dalai Lama regularly meets with foreign leaders. Not much happens except the People's Republic of China gets mad. They have pressured countries so meetings are less frequent. There are RS confirming this. This is more important than a diary of meetings. Keep this in mind as we edit. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend addition of note on correct pronunciation of "Dalai". He may be charming, but he is not a "Dolly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Need comment on AfD

Here is an article for deletion proposal that needs knowledgable eyes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul W. Lynch. If this is not the proper place to post this, I apologize, and thanks.Jarhed (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of siblings

"Born fifth of 16 children"? I believe he is fifth of six children. 10 March 2010 wiki123qwe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki123qwe (talkcontribs) 02:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Moved new comment from "Lead" section above) May well be. The 16-children statement is unsourced, which is a problem in itself. Can anyone find a source for this information? /ninly(talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Page xxi of Mary Craig's Kundun has him as fifth of seven children. Bertport (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The couple had a total of 16 children, of whom only 7 survived beyond infancy." (Kundun: A Biography of the Family of the Dalai Lama, by Mary Craig, p. 29) SheilaShigley (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea about whose reincarnations were these children's, as it would be good to work out a family tree for all their past lives just to see who was related to whom in previous and present lives. (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference for "relinquish all temporal power"?

Does anyone have a reference for this: "He has clarified that his goal is to relinquish all temporal power and to no longer play a "pronounced spiritual role" and have a simpler monastic life." FantajiFan (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, found something for it. FantajiFan (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography section

I don't think "Bibliography" is a bibliography for the article. Instead, it's a list of his books. How about we change the section title to "His published works"? And what's the rule for listing books? I vote for chronological order, oldest to newest. Does anyone know? DBlomgren (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean ... but "Bibliography" at Wikipedia is a common title for the list of an author's books in the article about that author. Look around at other articles, e.g. John Steinbeck and Chögyam Trungpa. Bertport (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


British journalist Christopher Hitchens criticised the Dalai Lama in 1998, questioned his alleged support for India's nuclear weapons testing, his statements about sexual misconduct, his suppression of Shugden worship, as well as his meeting Shoko Asahara, whose cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system.[1][2] Hitchens proclaims that he "makes absurd pronouncements about sex and diet and, when on his trips to Hollywood fund-raisers, anoints major donors like Steven Segal and Richard Gere as holy."

I don't think this is section is worthy of inclusion because it is not presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone with his ad hominum attacks on the Dalai Lama, using words such as "absurd" and generally critising him as much as he can. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. How many other people have this view on the Dalai Lama? I don't think many at all do. generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

What do you think? --Actoreng1 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, this discussion ought to have taken place before anyone started to suppress the passage about Hitchens's views. That passage has been in the main page since 21 March 2008, that is over a span of two years without a single contributor ever finding fault with it, so why the sudden urge to remove it?
Next, on what basis of fact do you rely to call Hitchens's criticism the view of a tiny minority ? Is he the only person to have aired these grievances?
Lastly, don't you think taking out this piece of criticism from the page will only invite it to find its way back to it with a vengeance sooner or later?--Christian Lassure (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's a tiny minority - it's the view of one person. What is it but a bit of a sneer, anyway? What does it say, other than "Hitchens doesn't like the Dalai Lama"? It contributes zero value to the article. There is nothing notable or informative about this comment, that it should merit inclusion. Bertport (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bertport, and as no one else disagrees or has retorted Bertport I'm going to delete the section. --Actoreng1 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph about Christopher Hitchens's pronouncements summarises a number of controversies that have surrounded the character and actions of the Dalai Lama. These controversies do exist and have generated untold pages in print and on line. They fully deserve being mentioned in the relevant section.--Christian Lassure (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Where are your sources that it has generated untold pages in print and on line. And why does it fully deserve being mentioned in the relevant section? Of course it's a tiny minority - it's the view of one person. What is it but a bit of a sneer, anyway? What does it say, other than "Hitchens doesn't like the Dalai Lama"? It contributes zero value to the article. There is nothing notable or informative about this comment, that it should merit inclusion. It is a petty, bias ad hominum attacks on the Dalai Lama, critising him as much as he can. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. It is a tiny minority, and as such should not be included at all. --Actoreng1 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP also says that articles on living people require a high degree of sensitivity. Wikipedia is not to be used as a platform for spreading hostile gossip. If Hitchens is notable enough to be mentioned at all - if he is - then a short sentence along the lines of "Critics of the Dalai Lama include journalist Christopher Hitchens". Bertport (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
To Actoreng1: I have seen nowhere that the views expressed by Hitchens are "those of a tiny minority". What is your source for that assertion (apart from repeating it over and over)?
Besides, you should quote me properly: I said "These controversies do exist and have generated untold pages in print and on line" and not "it has generated untold pages in print and on line".
To Bertport: I have seen nowhere your justification for suppressing the information about the Dalai Lama's native language (of his own, late admission in Thomas Laird's book). While I can understand that Hitchens's rantings need not remain in the page at all cost, I will insist on the mention of the Dalai Lama's native language being left in it. --Christian Lassure (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
CL, please see the discussion in the "Lead" section above. Bertport (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Provided the sentence about the first language is included in the body of the text,I see no objection to it being removed from the lead.--Christian Lassure (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ His material highness article by Christopher Hitchens
  2. ^ "World Tibet Network News". His Holiness the Dalai Lama's view on India's Nuclear Tests. 

Political offices box

I'm not sure what the best way to list the Dalai Lama's offices in the boxes at the bottom of the page is. Right now, it lists "Buddhist offices" with "Dalai Lama" from 1950 to present plus a note saying he was recognised in 1937; plus "political offices" listing his position as titular head of Tibet (this was prior to the creation of the TAR) from 1956 to 1959. This seems confusing. The Dalai Lama didn't become Dalai Lama in 1950 - in principle, he has been the Dalai Lama since he was born, and he was recognised in 1937 and enthroned in 1939 or 1940. In 1950 he assumed his political office as head of state of Tibet, on the eve of the "Peaceful Liberation". So, it seems like those should be two different boxes. But, what happens after the 1950s? He originally became head of the Tibetan administration in 1950 when it was the effective government of the region and was independent by its own description. Shortly thereafter, the entire Tibetan government was incorporated into the PRC, but it continued to govern the country at first. Then it gradually lost control to the parallel Chinese structures. In 1959, the Dalai Lama went to India, where he continued to head the old Tibetan government, which certainly didn't govern Tibet anymore and that point ... but it hadn't really governed it for a few years before that anyway. That organisation developed into the current Central Tibetan Administration, essentially a political pressure group (often referred to as the government-in-exile due to its government-like internal structure, but it does not officially claim to be a government-in-exile). So, I'm not sure how the boxes should describe his political offices.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor language edit needed (word error)

Under subsection "Social Stances," line reads The Dalai Lama experienced with vegetarianism once, should probably read The Dalai Lama experimented with vegetarianism once. Would fix it myself but page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Quigley (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I have a series of questions that the article doesn't answer 1.What citizenship(s) does the Dalai lama currently hold? I know he is based in India now, but does he have Indian citizenship or is he staying there on a visa? 2. Did he ever hold Chinese citizenship at birth or any other point of his life ? After all, he was born during the 'warlord' era when the central government had little or no control in the area. 3. If 2. was his Chinese citizenship revoked?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srmkil (talkcontribs) 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese government often refers to the Dalai Lama's Chinese citizenship—it would extremely strange if he didn't have it, since he held high-ranking government posts in the PRC for at least a decade. He is probably considered to have it since birth; a state can grant citizenship to people out of its control: for example, China granted citizenship to Hong Kong people born while the city was under British control. But for staying in India, and for travel, he uses a "Yellow Book" that India gives to Tibetan refugees, as it is consistent with the image and persona he wants to portray. So it has not been revoked, but to renounce it or to invoke it to get a visa would have political implications that he does not seem to want at this point. Quigley (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The Chinese Government may claim anything in his difamation campaign ( and they are good at picking anything and twisting facts to suit their tastes). Furthermore the Dalai Lama was born in a Chinese occupied Tibetan region and belonged to a Tibetan group since the beginnings of his life . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is not what the Chinese government claims. Any government can claim people have their citizenship, and with that certain duties. For example there was recently a chap born in the UK to a French mother living in the UK. According to French law, he has French citizenship, and when he went over to France for a trip, unbeknown to him he was dragged away to do national service because the law of France then was males above a certain age had to do national service. The real question is, has dalai lama ever denied that he is a Chinese citizen, or that he has renounced his Chinese citizenship through the proper legal process? (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section...

... is missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I did remove a quibble by the Yale Times (or something like that). It was poorly written and hard to understand and, lets face it, if a source is insignificant... it's insignificant. In a way, this edit was a little painful as I did like the addition of a criticism in an article this size (no matter what good will I have for the subject). It does bring to mind that many people do not understand research. A source must be reasonable (and what THAT means is more than I want to type right now). Gingermint (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering there is no such thing as a "reasonable" source, your reluctance to explain what that may be is quite understandable. --Christian Lassure (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Belongs in Category:Indian marxists

As everyone knows he's from Dharamsala and it clearly relates his own self assessment to be "half-Marxist, half-Buddhist". If that doesn't make him a Marxist, then it also makes him not a Buddhist in which case remove the buddhist categories.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If by "Dharamsala" you mean "Amdo, Tibet", then yes, he's from "Dharamsala." As founder of the Tibetan Communist Party (in Dharamsala), he must be a Marxist, right? Therefore his self-assessment cannot be right, right? Therefore you can't use it for your argument, right? Tsha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Self assessments are not reliable. If there is controversy, a reliable source is needed to sort out how to categorise his beliefs. Rumiton (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the article: "On gender equality and sexism, the Dalai Lama proclaimed at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee in 2009: "I call myself a feminist. Isn't that what you call someone who fights for women's rights?"[79]" That's the article's only reference about the Dalai Lame and women's rights? And I call myself a Jedi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed?

The Dalai Lama's chief spiritual practice is Dzogchen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama was NOT born in the "People's Republic of China"

People's Republic of China was established in 1949.

Before 1949 China was officially named as the "Republic of China" before it was relocated to Taiwan in 1949.

So I strongly recommend that the birthplace of the person should be changed to "Taktser, Chinghai, Republic of China". (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The error is a quite recent addition and so it has been reverted. Quigley (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the link: 'Republic of China' now goes to 'People's Republic of China' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezuvian (talkcontribs) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro appears to have been written by some pro-Chinese propagandist

intro to this article NOT GOOD. Appears to have been written by some pro-Chinese propagandist. It is in no way a fair or balanced summary of the who the Dalai Lama is. It mentions a few 'controversies' - re Dorje Shugden, Tibetan 'independence', etc. These so-called controversies are a very small part of the Dalai Lama's life and activities. Further, I'm confident in saying that most who know anything at all about the Dalai Lama would realise that these issues are not issues from the Dalai Lama's side, they're issues others have created for their own political purposes. Eg, for decades now the Dalai Lama has been advocating a very moderate position on Chinese occupation of Tibet - ie, calling for Tibet to be given autonomy within greater China. If any fair-minded person analyses his position and statements they will see that he is not calling for independence. The Chinese government like to say that he is, because they are basically paranoid about maintaining an iron grip and Tibet and suppressing any form of dissent. Really needs to be rewritten to be fair and balanced. Giving such high prominence to invented negative issues is simply unfair and unbalanced. There is mention of 'CIA activities' for example (I believe this whole thing to be merely some invented slur anyway), but no mention of the fact that the Dalai Lame is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, for example. Don't have the time to research and rewrite an intro, but I really wanted to express my feelings with regard to its current content, which as I said is not good at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. I've made some changes to ameliorate it. Bertport (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Lead sections of articles should summarize important controversies, and the Dalai Lama is a controversial figure. If you can't accept some of the facts, like the Dalai Lama's now admitted (but long denied) involvement with the CIA, then the solution to that problem is a change of mindset and not a change of article.
As for the Tibetan independence movement, the Dalai Lama's official change in position from independence (which is conditional, by the way, on being able to gain his desired autonomy), is quite recent and happened concurrently with his deliberate lessening of his own influence in the far more important independence movement that he spawned. This article tries to cover his whole life, and not just his statements of the day. Bertport's revised text that describes his politics instead as "lifelong advocacy for Tibetans inside and outside Tibet" is too weasely and laudatory. Most of the ostensibly nonpolitical things he does are in fact a means to a political ends. The idea that Tibetan culture needs to be "preserved" outside of Tibet, for example, is not only predicated on the idea that Tibetan culture is somehow being destroyed inside Tibet, but is also a preparation for a re-occupation of an independent Tibet by Tibetans in the diaspora. A compromise description should somehow acknowledge the Dalai Lama's role in the politics of Tibet and his efforts to change the political status of Tibet. Quigley (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"Lifelong advocacy for Tibetans inside and outside Tibet" is certainly a fair characterization of one of the major aspects of his work and of what he is known for. I agree that some explicit mention of his role in the politics of Tibet deserves mention in the lead, too. For instance, we could cite The Nobel Peace Prize 1989 to say that the Nobel Peace Prize committee wanted to emphasize his opposition to the use of violence while working for the liberation of Tibet. Bertport (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

China's continuing efforts to suppress the Dalai Lama worldwide

I was just reading [2], which mentioned that China removed the University of Calgary from their list of accredited universities, because the university had hosted the Dalai Lama as a guest speaker. This is, of course, just one example of the well known practice China has long employed of pressuring institutions around the world to ostracize the Dalai Lama. This topic deserves a section in the article. Bertport (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the objective not for governments to receive him as a political leader, but as a religious leader? That material can fit into the section for his international travels and political activity. Quigley (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
All governements do that. Just look at what the US government does to WikiLeaks. (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppress? The Chinese peoples (including Tibetans) just want the dalai lama to tell the truth about how the people he sides with treated "Mongolians". It is the dalai lama who is suppressing the truth in world history.,blogs,forums/anti-Chinese-persecution-in-the-USA-history-timeline.htm (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


What the article says is that one reason (and it lists others) of the Dalai Lama's international popularity is a fear of and a hostility towards China and Chinese. This is pretty obvious, since Tibetan independence would be an enormous loss in prestige and power for China. Also, the delegitimization of China and its portrayal as a colonial and genocidal state with regard to Tibet legitimizes hostility against Chinese nationals, and the line between nationality and ethnicity is very fluid and not always respected by bigots; this has been true throughout the history of conflict in general. The Dalai Lama has been used as a weapon against China: when ties between Myanmar and China worsened, for example, a Myanma state newspaper published a feature on the Dalai Lama. So you can't separate the China factor in the Dalai Lama's appeal. After all, if he were attacking India and Indians for their control of [ethnically Tibetan] Ladakh and Tawang, would the emotions run high enough to enable people to attack an Indian paralympic performer? Quigley (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenzin IS AGAINST CHINESE PEOPLE. He and his supporters killed many people in the March 14th riot in Tibet. If you were there you'll see. --Thomas Greenfield (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not to deduce anything..There is no credible proof to link Dalai Lama to the riots in Tibet.Take your propaganda somewhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new there, see,blogs,forums/anti-Chinese-persecution-in-the-USA-history-timeline.htm (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


In the introduction it should be mentioned that on his travels (all of which he is invited to btw.) in addition to "advocating for the welfare of Tibetans and teaching Tibetan Buddhism" he is talking a great deal about the importance of compassion for our life, which is the first of his three main committments.[3]Madden (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What compassion does he have for all those people's life he took in his previous lives? May be they have now been reborn as Han Chinese to expose his evil doings. (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On numerous occasions the Dalai Lama stated, that he has no sentiments against the Han people. I don't have a particular source right now, but on the official website of the Dalai Lama you can find multiple videos and press releases where this is made clear. • Madden (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) This dude - seems to have something against Dalai Lama and is trying everything to manipulate this article..There is no proof whatsoever that Dalai Lama is anti-chinese.I remember a video posted in some Indian news channel where he mentioned that Han Chinese and Tibetans should peacefully coexist.I dont believe Dalai Lama is anti-han Chinese. Many Han Chinese visit Dalai Lama in Dharmsala and donate money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talkcontribs) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dalai lama is not simply anti-Han Chinese, he is anti-Chinese. He does this by simply referring to himself as Tibetan instead of Tibetan Chinese. Imagine Barack Obama not calling himself an American or an African-American but simply an African. Han Chinese and Tibetan Chinese got along just fine until people like dalai lama stirred up trouble. Lama buddhism was at one time a state religion of China, so of course there are Han Chinese people whose religion is still Lama buddhism. (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tantric doctrine, not "Buddhist belief"

According to several tantras, consciousness enters the womb at the moment a drop of sperm and a drop of blood unite. There is in conformity with ancient Indian beliefs, but as far as I am aware, it's not a "Buddhist belief" per se. Does anyone know of sutras that say the same thing? Either way, it may be regarded as a tantric doctrine unless revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism and Lama or Tibetan Buddhism are two different religions. In relative chronological terms, the time difference between the life of Buddha and the beginning of lama buddhism is similar to that of the time difference between the life of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the Mormon church. Lama Buddhism is as different from Buddhism as Mormonism is to Roman Catholicism. Therefore you cannot equate the practices found in Lama Buddhism with that of general Buddhism. (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See belpw link — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dalai Lama pas si Zen The author of Dalai Lama pas si Zen should realise that Lama Buddhism and Zen Buddhism are two different religions, in the same way Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy are two different religions. (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Stilted English and other issues

"Critics of the news and entertainment media coverage of the controversy charge that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as popularly portrayed. The penal code before 1913 included forms of judicial mutilation and capital punishment to enforce a social system controversially described as both slavery and serfdom. In response, the Dalai Lama agreed many of old Tibet's practices needed reform. His predecessor had banned extreme punishments and the death penalty. And he had started some reforms like removal of debt inheritance during the early years of his government under the People's Republic of China in 1951."

Firstly, what Critics are being referred to here? I came to this article looking for sources... there are none here :( And the last sentence starts with "And", which makes the English quite stilted.

For some reason, this article is protected... could these issues please be fixed? Thanks! - (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protected permanently...

... according to the logs this was done 2 years ago due to vandalism. Could I ask where this has been recorded and might it not be time for this decision to be reviewed? - (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the SOuth African visa incident

can someone put that in. Tutu throws a fit at visa block--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why Tutu should throw a fit. Tutu is a Christian leader. Christianity insists that it is the only genuine religion. Christianity does not recognise lama buddhism as a true religion. Therefore Tutu cannot recognise dl as a genuine religious leader. It is the duty of Christian leaders to find converts. Tutu should be glad that the ban has prevented a heathen from entering his country, unless of course if he wants to convert dalai lama into a Christian and accept that Jesus Christ, and not the Buddha, is the true Lord. (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So Chinese communinist system is totalitarian system, but dalai lama system is not a totalitarian system? If DL is so full of wisdom, maybe he will feed and house all those South Africans who live in slums. DL is having a laugh. (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One has to be careful of rhetoric used by tutu and dl. For distorted views of historic events see the following: (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Has the dl become a bit forgetful after being reincarnated for several hundred years? Were it not leaders of christianity who had called him and the buddha a demon/devil? (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So dl thinks he has wisdom? He should get real about believing he can get real sympathy from these people and how they treat the "Mongolians" historically and even today.,blogs,forums/anti-Chinese-persecution-in-the-USA-history-timeline.htm (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
All this should show is that the common enemy of the Black Africans, the Tibetans and the Chinese is the white man. (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for addition

At the end of the environment section, please could somebody add the following paragraph: In November 2011, he was quoted of being in support of using nuclear power as a way to bridge the socioeconomic gap in developing countries. At a news conference in Tokyo, he noted that other energy sources like wind and solar are too inefficient to put into realistic practice to meet the needs of fast-developing countries, and urged people on both sides of the nuclear argument to look at the issue “holistically.”[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)



According to some sources, he was born on June 6, 1935 (rather than July 6). --VAN ZANT (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dalai Lama claims Chinese try to poison him

DL claims the Chinese are trying to poison him. , although the techniques he claimed are historically the ones Tibetans used to use on each other. (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


It says in the article that he was born in Taktser,which now is part of Qinghai Province.Qinghai is historically part of Greater Tibet and has a large ethnic Tibetan population. The article lists his birthplace as being Taktser, China. I know that at that time the region we now call Xizang was independent as the Qing dynasty imploded. However, it's unclear to me whether that part of Qinghai was under Tibetan or KMT control at that time; I imagine territorial borders changed quite rapidly. I'm asking to see if anyone can clarify the political status of Qinghai at that time, and whether we should change it. Thanks.Van Gulik (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Taktser is a long way away from the Tibetan cultural heartland. It is located in a cultural transition zone with a mixed population of Tibetans, Mongols, Han Chinese, and Chinese-speaking Muslims. (I believe it's in a Muslim "autonomous" area currently.) The political status of Taktser in the 1930s is pretty clear: it was under the control of the warlord Ma Bufang, who was aligned with the Republic of China (he later went to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek after the fall of the mainland).
In some sense, the Dalai Lama was born "in Tibet". However, I think it's hard to argue that that would be the most neutral short description of the place.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated controversies

"The twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo (the only prominent female tulku in Tibet) was quoted in Xinhua as saying that "The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation", adding that "Old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle."[80]"

I will remove the above sentence from the controversies section as:

  1. The current phrasing is linking the "sins of the Dalai Lama" with the fact that "Old Tibe was dark and cruel..." while the original article says that "The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation," the Samding Dorje Phagmo was quoted as saying -- though she did not detail what his transgressions were"
  2. The issue of "Old Tibet was dark and cruel" can hardly be related to a controversy around the 14th Dalai Lama. He was enthroned formally as the temporal ruler of Tibet at the age of 15 on 17 November 1950, more than one month after the Battle of Chamdo that marks the start of the physical Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China.
  3. This accusation of (unspecified) "sins" did not create any controvery. --Pseudois (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it relates to the 14th dl. The current dl is reborn from his previous selfs. (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Current section on abortion

In the chapter "social stances", there is currently a subsection about the Dalai Lama's view on abortion. The topic of abortion is even mentioned in the lead.

I think that this is giving an undue weight to the only topic of abortion, compared for example to the topic of contraception and family planning, which he has often addressed. I propose to rename the section "Reproductive health", and add some more material on contraception.

Possibly it could even be merged together with sexuality (currently focusing a lot on his view on oral, manual and anal sex, but little on contraception), into a new chapter "Reproductive health and sexuality".--Pseudois (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Public image and subchapters

The current structure of the chapter and content seem a bit odd, with:
5. Public image
This chapter seems to focus too much on two aspects:

  • His image in the US, with a strong emphasis on the US film industry in the 1990ies.
  • The image portrayed by his crictics

While both topics are noteworthy, the article should be more balanced, with more diversified views. On the other side, some parts are simply off-topic and relate to Tibet before his own birth, such as "Critics of the news and entertainment media coverage of the controversy charge that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as popularly portrayed. The penal code before 1913 included forms of judicial mutilation and capital punishment to enforce a social system controversially described as both slavery and serfdom". It should either be deleted or moved to another article dealing with the "public image" of Tibet, not the "public image" of the Dalai Lama...

5.1 International reception
Again a repetition of Holiwood related content. This chapter can simply be deleted as redundant. Otherwise it should be broadened to his relations with a broader spectrum of politicians and personalities worldwide, from Aung San Suu Kyi to Desmond Tutu. I would rather suggest to integrate a few of these names in chapter 5, drop Gere and cie, and delete chapter 5.1.

5.1.1. Awards and honors
This chapter should better have its own section, with the most relevant awards being listed either chronologically or by order of importance. Currently it looks a bit messy with awards received in 1959, 2006, 2005, 1989 and 2012 following each other without structure. And last but not least, the presentation of the 1989 Nobel Prize doesn't seem to be well balanced and is containing too many side aspects not really relevant. For example, the sentence "After the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Dalai Lama the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize" can be simplified to "The Dalai Lama was awarded the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize". Sometimes less is more.--Pseudois (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

14th Dalai Lama --> Dalai Lama XIV. Wikipedia doesn't use Pope Benedict 16th, so why use not follow that pattern here? --Coingeek (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Because 1) most importantly, "14th Dalai Lama" is standard while "Dalai Lama XIV" is much less common (although it's surprising that Britannica uses the latter); 2) the spoken form is also more common as "14th Dalai Lama" whereas "Dalai Lama XIV" implies that it would read "Dalai Lama the 14th"; 3) the "XIV" form is traditionally used with personal names, which Benedict is, but Dalai Lama is a title.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thank you for the explanation. --Coingeek (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Testimony that lama reincarnation is just plain nonsense

Link above to Spanish boy who was named as lama yeshe's reincarnation. It's really messed up the poor boy's head. (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tibetans seem to believe that being a tülku who is not raised in the proper environment can really mess with your head. I suppose their hypothesis would predict that tülkus who are never identified have it worst of all, whereas the secular hypothesis would argue that being treated as a tülku is the problem itself. The trick would be to find tülkus who had never been identified and see how they're doing. Steven Seagal might be an interesting example; I will leave it to the reader's judgment to judge whether he is messed up in the head. However, that's just one data point.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I must say, if seagal were a lama, then he is a lama who likes his women and loves sexual reproduction. (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between a monk and a lay lama. Many lamas had children, such as Dudjom Rinpoche, Marpa Lotsawa etc. I think you are very confused. Steven Seagal is NOT a lama. Merigar (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes Greg seems very confused. The discussion began with a lama, and then Greg went on to talk about Seagal, who Merigar say is not a lama. (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Mahasiddhas and the greatest contemporary lamas left the monasteries to pursue a lay life. This has been part of Vajrayana from the beginning, and is actually a requirement for physical karmamudra etc. So I don't see how this proves that "lama reincarnation is plain nonsense."Merigar (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC) (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it shows lama reincarnation is nonsense. The boy doesn't recognise that he is a reincarnation of anyone. He was just brainwashed from babyhood into thinking that he was the reincarnation of someone. Of course many lamas had women and offsprings; westerners misunderstand lama and Tibetan life-style choices and reproductive practices, and confuse lamas with Christian monks or the Roman Catholic clergy. Children recognised as reincarnation of a particular lama or Tibetan person is most probably just a genetic descendant of that person. (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)