Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Politics

Since if I understand correctly the Dalai lama is awsome!We're head of state for a long tie, it would seem reasonable to say something about what kind of economic and social policies they organized. 90.11.101.23 (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are openning a can of worm if you do that. You would be amazed about the dirts this would dig up. Someone who is friend with the nazis, gets funding from CIA, and a slave owner in nature, what do you think about the economic and soclial policy they would organize? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.251.98 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

SEMI-PROTECTION FOR ARTICLE?

According to my experience with this article, there seems to have been too many vandalism edits. Should this article, according to your Wikipedia ethics, be semi-protected for a while? (or indefinite?) Prowikipedians (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this lock should have been done after correcting a few types, but mostly after deleting this comment: "The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks separate Tibet from China, although he lies to the Western world that he only seeks autonomy." Or at least provide a source for that? To me that just sounds like a political comment by someone close to the Chinese-enforced view... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.53.245 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An article for mainstream people

For once I agree with the tags added to the top of the article - there is way to many weírd words in the article. I wish to know a bit about the Dalai Lama, not become a scholar on buddism and tibet and their langauge. "The Dalai Lama is often thought to be the head of the Gelug School, but this position officially belongs to the Ganden Tripa" Whatever any of that means - this shouldn't be at the top but way down in some appendix. --IceHunter (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Semi-protection"

I am a registered user, so why is this "semi-protected"? I read through a bunch of complicated rules, policies, and guidelines yesterday, and semi-protection stops non-registered users from editing. Am I not registered? --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Independence from China

I don't know where this belongs, so i put it here. In the History-section it says "The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks separate Tibet from China, although he lies to the Western world that he only seeks autonomy." Sounds very odd and POV for me, if someone who can will change this for something better, or remove it alltogether. 81.197.71.87 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to have been written by someone in the Chinese government, or influenced by same. It is a classic example of the ridiculous propaganda that they promote. The Chinese may have a 'law' on reincarnation, but it's simply ludicrous. The Dalai Lama does not lie and he is still the leader of Tibet - even though they forced him to leave. Had he not left, he would be passed on and the chinese would have appointed a puppet Dalai Lama in his place, just as they have done with other high lamas since the Maoist goverment invaded Tibet. The Chinese are guilty of horrible crimes against humanity and no one in the world community will effectively hold the responsible, because sadly, the chinese government has many countries (the US in particular) by the purse strings because of their cheap imports and deeply embedded (and hidden) business ties with conglomerates like Walmart, as well as with government officials and the families of same (such as Nancy Pelosi's husband).

This article is 90% untruth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbuckner (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The dalai lamas and their cronies were and are guilty of horrible crimes against humanity, and no one in the world community will effectively hold them responsible as they were done in the name of religion. If they were held responsible, then every country will need to look at its own religious past, and all the skeletons in its cupboards. 81.154.201.191 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WRONG- the puppet leader is NOT A FAKE DALAI LAMA, HES A FAKE PANCHEN LAMA. unfortunetly japanese were not held responsible, and neither were the western powers and the USA when they commited severe atrocities against humanity, and btw wikipedia is BLOCKED IN CHINA, so its impossbile someone from china screwed the article up. YOU are 90% misinformed as i have just proved now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk • contribs) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is by no means impossible that someone in China edited this article just because the Wikipedia is blocked there - there are (according to the press) some 30,000 "internet police" in China and it would seem very likely that at least some of them would be in a position to edit the Wikipedia. John Hill (talk)

Right John, and you are a member of the CIA. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by Lxoe

Lxoe, your changes are completely inappropriate. You are changing sourced material without, I am sure, even bothering to check those citations to see if your additions are supported by them. You are making highly POV edits that are not what the article needs - you also removed material without an explanation. Thus I have reverted - please bring the discussion here next time. John Smith's (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT.

(Written 7:22 PM EST on March 30, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.157.129 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it sad that I come here to try and get some layman's terms of what exactly a dalai lama is and the first thing I read appears to be a bunch of gibberish?

What the heck kind of first sentence is this?

"In Tibetan Buddhism, the successive Dalai Lamas form a lineage of (tulku) magistrates and religious leaders which traces back to 1391.[1]"

You don't even tell us what dalai lamas are before you tell us what they do, of course, smathering this with more stuff we don't even know about in the first place.

As someone who knows nothing about the subject, could we get some clean-up here? Thank you!!

--Concerned and Frustrated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.157.129 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I will be working on this page over the next few weeks and trying to clean it up as part of my general plan to remove POV and needless confusion from tibetan and Dalai Lama-related articles. Dragonnas (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the end-all source for information. Go to a library, read some books, check other websites. Then, if you find it appropriate, make the changes yourself. Your complaints are unfounded. --Bentonia School (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned Up Intro

I have just written a new introductory paragraph to familiarize laymen with the Dalai Lama title. I have moved the former intro paragraph down and left it mostly intact, as it is suitably written as an "additional information" secondary paragraph. Hopefully this will improve the readability of the article! Please suggest changes on talk page or let me know if you like it! Dragonnas (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A messive improvement. As you can see from the above discussion, we've had some serious problems in the past with users inserting tons of opaque jargon into the intro which makes it unreadable. Please feel free to keep up the good work. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jargon removed from article

The successive Dalai Lamas form a lineage of tulku magistrates and religious leaders which traces back to 1391. According to tradition, the rarified mindstream of these tulku take repeated births and embodiment to fulfill their Boddhisattva vow. They are of the Gelug School of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhists hold the Dalai Lama to be one of innumerable incarnations of Avalokiteśvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion.

The above paragraph was cut from the article due to being mostly unreadable. However, I believe that it contains important information about the background of the Dalai Lama, it just doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. Can someone go through this information and incorporate it as appropriate into the remainder of the article? For example, there should be some mention of the Boddhisatva of Compassion in this article, but perhaps not in the intro sentence. Thanks for your assistance! Long live wiki. Dragonnas (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw the tags on the article re jargon and minimally copy-edited intro. There is a lot of repetition in the article. For instance, in the intro it explains "Ocean Teacher" and then right away it appears in the next section as well. This probably should be moved into that section since it fits the header better and it not necessary in the lead. Best, Renee Renee (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, I actually wrote the top intro, I've been trying to rewrite the whole article bit by bit. I will remove the "ocean teacher" part from below; my reasoning is that linguistic breakdowns of terms are typically in the topic paragraph of encyclopedia articles, not in the expanded background.Dragonnas (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. You'll have to change the header to the next section then. I haven't really looked at the rest of the article yet but I thought the entry was pretty good and clearly written -- good job! Renee (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation

Hi Folks, I consolidated the duplicate sentences about what the name means into the intro. I then consolidated the remainder of the "nomenclature..." section into History, where it seemed to fit best given both speak of the third Dalai Lama. Hope this is agreeable to everyone. Renee (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding these sentences, The Dalai Lama has recognized a different child, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, as the reincarnated Panchen Lama. This child and his family have been taken into 'protective custody' according to the PRC... Has the PRC taken Gedhun Choekyi into protective custody? Or, has the current Dalai Lama done this? Thanks, Renee (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gedhun Choekyi has been taken into protective custody by the government of china. He has not been seen in public since 1995 and many believe he is no longer living, but there is no evidence one way or the other- hence, the wiki-linked "forced disappearance". Otherwise- Excellent work, by the way! I like what you've done with the article, it's more of a time expenditure than I was capable of and I thank you. Careful, I noticed a few particle and tense errors... is english your first language? I might tighten up the grammar here and there but I like most of it immensely.Dragonnas (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting. It'd be nice to include this in the article -- I'll see if I can find a citation. Regarding is english your first language -- sure is and sadly my only. Graduated 1st in my class from a nationally-ranked journalism school, hold a Ph.D., and have published enough articles, chapters, and books to wallpaper my house. I think the issue is that I'm trying to edit/streamline while keeping the voice of the original writer instead of rewriting the passages from scratch. Also, I write more colloquially, i.e., what "sounds" write right (pun intended, :). As an aside, the grammar check on programs like Microsoft Word are just plan wrong. I've had many discussions with my English prof colleagues on this very issue. Having said that, if you don't like something please feel free to change it! Won't bother me a bit. Thanks, ReneeRenee (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few articles about Gedhun Choekyi.

This one says, In 1995, China arrested the Panchen Lama, the number two in Tibetan Buddhism, a six-year-old, Gedun Nyima. He has not been seen since, but many Tibetans told me they believe he has fled to India.

This one says, In the 1990s, when the 11th Panchen Lama had to be chosen following his predecessor’s death, the six-year-old nominee endorsed by the Dalai Lama mysteriously disappeared, after which China appointed its own candidate.

This one says, But the Panchen Lama named by the Dalai Lama in 1995 was arrested by the Chinese and hasn't been seen since (he was 6 years old at the time of his arrest).

And finally, this one says, He was called the world's youngest political prisoner when, as a six-year-old, he was taken into Chinese custody in 1995. He has not been seen or heard of since.

These sources make it sound like he was arrested, not taken into protective custody. What do you think? Would you agree with making this change? Renee (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he has been arrested, but the chinese authorities state he is in protective custody, and since those authorities control chinese media they have plausible deniability. In my opinion, "forced disappearance" is the best description for what has happened to him, because he hasn't been charged with a crime, and the only entity who claims to know his whereabouts is not trustworthy and also not providing evidence for his continued existence. I'd go with the most neutral option, stating that according to non-credible sources, he has been taken into protective custody, which for all intents and purposes is equal to being placed under arrest.Dragonnas (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the last two citations are the most neutral and have the best record for vetting and fact-checking, so how about using those two? Renee (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Tibetan title

In this article, the suggested pronunciation for the Tibetan (in Wylie transcription) yid bzhin nor bu is "yeshe norbu", but this is somewhat dubious: "yishin norbu" would be a better pronunciation spelling (though there is always room for discussion, given the number of Tibetan dialects). There is indeed a Tibetan word whose pronunciation would be represented by "yeshe", namely ye shes, but that word means something like primordial wisdom, which is not the meaning of the word yid bzhin, wish-fulfilling. The phrase yid bzhin nor bu is correctly explained in the article as meaning wish-fufilling jewel. Gzhanstong (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I will adjust the article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The style "His Holiness"

The article includes a sentence that reads, He is often referred to simply as "His Holiness" (HH), or "His Holiness The Dalai Lama." "Simply" is somewhat misleading, since, depending upon context, "His Holiness" refers to a number of different religious leaders, and probably most persons in the Western world would, upon hearing it, think in the first instance of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

A better statement of the situation would be this:

Many diplomats, politicians, and Western students of Tibetan Buddhism address him with the style "His Holiness," although, strictly speaking, he is not the head of a religious group in the required sense (see "Usage" at His Holiness).

Gzhanstong (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Geoffduggan and his various sockpuppets

This is getting tiresome - I'm sure even more so for those of you who defended this article over the weekend. What do you all think we should do about this user / users? Yunfeng (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Dalai means 'great sea', which is translated as ocean. Dalai lama means the great sea lama, which could be better translated as Chief Lama. 81.133.120.149 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on editing the article? It already says that "Dalai" means ocean?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do what you like. Generally Tibetans, especially characters in history, do not know what an ocean is as they live in a land-locked habitat thousands of miles from the nearest ocean. So 'as deep as an ocean' has no real meaning to Tibetans. 81.157.101.216 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The name was given to one of the Dalai Lamas by a Mongolian Khan, who very well knew what the sea is. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well actually the tibetan word is gyatso, and existed before the word dalai was bestowed. Tibetans of that time had not seen an ocean. 81.154.201.191 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is rather disingenuous as many Sanskrit and Chinese texts had been translated into Tibetan by this time and, as the ocean is mentioned in many Buddhist texts, it seems very unlikely that educated Tibetans had no idea of what an ocean was. Also, many people in the world today have never seen the ocean - this does not mean the its use as a metaphor has no meaning for them. John Hill (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which Buddhist texts are you talking about? What do you mean by there are many people who have never seen an ocean? Do you think they have not seen an ocean on television or in a film? The vast majority of Tibetans back then have never seen an ocean or a true picture of an ocean. The vast majority of people alive right at this moment have seen an ocean or a true image of an ocean. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your point?

To clear up a little of your ignorance, you can read a bit about some of the masters of early Tibetan Buddhism here you'll notice that many of these were translators. Tibetans translated every Sanskrit text they could find and a great deal of Chinese texts as well. Written Tibetan is based on Devanagari, the form often used to write Sanskrit. Tibet, because of its dry and cold climate, is a wonderful place to store books. While books in India and China have rotted away, the monasteries of Tibet are treasure houses of old texts, especially Sakya, which was spared a lot of the destruction of the Cultural Revolution. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To clear up some of your ignorance, the vast majority of the Tibetan people are not masters of early Tibetan buddhism. The vast majority of Tibetans had not seen an ocean, and had no idea of what an ocean really was. 86.147.244.1 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ascended masters?

The link to ascended masters gives a very strange impression that the Dalai Lama is somehow related to the Theosophy movement. Nor could I find mention on that page that the Dalai Lama is in fact believed to be an ascended master by Theosophists. Does anyone mind if I rephrase ascended master (any suggestions?) and remove the wiki link? Dakinijones (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be true. Apparently most ascended masters were supposed to be Tibetan, according to the Wiki article. And we all know that if Wikipedia says it, it must be true. :-) Could be something to look into. At any rate, the link in the lead is certainly WP:UNDUE. I think the word that we're looking for is bodhisattva if we're talking about beings who choose to be reincarnated. And since the DL is considered an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, that word seems best. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ascended master is a synonym for Bodhisattva, essentially a western term for the eastern concept of Bodhisattva. Dragonnas (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Never come across it in Buddhist literature, so it seems not widely used to say the least?rudy (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

HH the Dalai Lama is considered to be a Bodhisattva. I had never heard him referred to as an ascended master as that is a later concept. I found it interesting. But I don't believe the West needs to redefine his position or the Tibetan view of him. It makes more sense to refer to him as a Bodhisattva and link to that defination. Wonderlane (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether dalai lamas are considered bodhisattva or not is totally irrelevant. The fact is all dalai lamas were just simple human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) of the Mongoloid race. For example the present dalai lama is a hepatitis carrier and needed to wear glasses from an early age to correct his eye sight. There is nothing special about him or any of the other dalai lamas. In this day and age, everyone should put superstition behind. 86.147.244.247 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

were being neutral here, innit, so its best to argue in a senseble manner and DONT insult ppl from either side for now, altough i do feel like lashing out at free tibet activists, this is not the place to do it Btzkillerv (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnations

In section history it is said: "Sonam Gyatso was an Abbot at the Drepung Monastery who was widely considered one of the most eminent lama of his time. Although Sonam Gyatso became the first lama to hold the title "Dalai Lama" as described above, as he was the third member of his lineage he became known as the "Third Dalai Lama." The previous two titles were conferred posthumously upon his earlier incarnations." Is it true that the lineage being talked about here is the lineage of Abbots at the Drepung Monastery?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.89 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them. The first Dalai Lama founded Tashilhünpo. I think that the next few Dalai Lamas were prominent at Drepung, up until they became political figures. I don't know if any of them other that Sönam Gyatso had the title of abbot—actually, I'm not sure whether there is such a position at Drepung. I suppose there probably was in the 16th century.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What reincarnation? The present dalai lama has stated that he still talks to his previous incarnation in his dreams!!! 86.136.143.199 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you read that? It would contradict common Buddhist sense... rudy (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

how old is he?

717.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Who has the authority to commission a newly incarnated Dalai Lama

Is it true that throughout history every newly incarnated Dailai Lama had to be certified by Chinese courts (Yuan, Ming, and Qin). Was 14th Dalai Lama himself commissioned by the national government of the Republic of China in 1933? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.66.76 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't think commissioned is the right word, but the authorities in Beijing certainly had to approve or rubber-stamp the appointee. 86.136.143.199 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like Chinese propaganda. Tibet was an autonomous, independent country and the Chinese are trying to re-write history to justify that it was always under their control. The fact that they gave him a rubber stamp does not mean they had any authority over him. rudy (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is propaganda. I was in the room when HH the 14th Dalai Lama joked and laughed at the idea of the Chinese government approving or disapproving any incarnation, shortly after the news was announced by the Chinese government that they would have to approve future Tibetan Buddhist incarnations.

The Italian government does not vote on HH the Pope for example, the Chinese Government does not approve the election of the Pope either.

His Holiness is recognized. By this, I mean it is just like recognizing an old friend no matter how long it has been since you last saw the person. Wonderlane (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The present dalai lama always laughs and jokes when he speaks. You just cannot take him seriously. He appears to have the EQ of a 2 year old. 86.147.244.247 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

I would like to know why images 1 , 8 , 9 & 12 are identical ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did any of the Dalai Lamas understand Chinese?

Did any of the Dalai Lamas understand Chinese? 86.136.143.199 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8223811.stm Will the Dalai Lama be praying and speaking in Mandarin Chinese? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism

I have some concerns about the "Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section, which was added to several articles. Please see my comments at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#"Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the hierarchy is an important item to cover.Wonderlane (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Shugden?

I noticed that there isn't even a single mention of Shugden on this page. Shouldn't there be a section talking about this particular concept? It has been brought further with much attention in the media recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.236.14 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dorje Shugdän controversy is mentioned in the article on the 14th Dalai Lama. I don't think it is very important to the history of the Dalai Lama lineage as a whole.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a minor topic compared to the major topics regarding HH the Dalai Lama(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlane (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Living Buddha

I took the liberty to remove the rferences to "Living Buddha" in the history section. I believe this is a Chinese expression, and not used by Tibetans at all as it extremely presumptuous. rudy (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to reincarnate?

Do you guys know the whole story surrounding the 14th Dalai Lama's claim that he has not decided whether or not he is going to reincarnate, has he given up on us sentient beings? Jess123087 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See the article on the 14th Dalai Lama. rudy (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's position on homosexuality

"In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. His American publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced."-Patrick Stewart 04/19/2003 New York Times "Dalai Lama Lite"

DL said homo (at least the male sort) is not OK because the organs were not for that purpose (as he put it, the wrong holes). But he said using yours hands is OK. 86.147.244.247 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you may be losing in this argument, is that this is not the 'position of the Dalai Lama', but this is related to the definition of sexual misconduct in (Tibetan) Buddhism in general. I'm not even sure of the exception of using the hands, I'd love to know where you found that, because traditionally, I think the hands are considered equivalent to 'holes' here.rudy (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2006/05/religious_right.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.244.247 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.pitaka.ch/dl.htm 86.147.244.247 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this is the position not just of the dl, but many other peoples and religions: cf Roman Catholicism, Islam and even 'decent' irreligious peoples. 86.147.244.247 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what I mean is the misleading suggestion in the title that this is the Dalai Lama's opinion, whereas it is merely the general Buddhist view, not a personal one. rudy (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8020311.stm

Report on gay Buddhist monks. 86.136.61.102 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the Dalai Lama spoke to gay leaders in San Francisco in 1994 and concluded that it's okay to be gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Blair (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it got anything to do with hoping for money donations from gays? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And what could possibly make you think of that? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Dalai Lama is greedy for money? Such deep, unfounded and unnecessary cynicism! Your question is really very sad. Try a little kindness - and look for the best in others rather than the worst - you will be happier, I am sure, and you won't be hurting others. Best wishes with it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's personality varies based on audience

"When he is speaking to his own people, the Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West. I remember a public talk he gave at his headquarters in Dharamsala in northern India in 1990, after conflict between Tibetans and Indians there. He spoke in Tibetan, and his delivery was stern and admonitory, like a forbidding, old-fashioned father reprimanding his children. The crowd listened respectfully, and went away chastened."-Patrick Stewart 04/19/2003 New York Times "Dalai Lama Lite"

Is that a bad thing, or unusual?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he IS considered as a big father by the Tibetans, and he has no such authority over westerners. Isn't this the same thing as if you would talk to your children or to your parents? rudy (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is a big father in Tibetan ways? Tibetans are polyandrous, and look to their mother not fathers (plural). 86.147.244.247 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The remark above is very misleading. First of all not all Tibetans are polyandrous, and even those who are generally look up to their fathers for guidance and show great respect and pride in their fathers (and their fathers' ancestors). Please do not make things up about matters you clearly know little about. John Hill (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan children from polyandrous relationships refer to the oldest husband of their mother as the big (meaning oldest) father. The youngest of their mother's husbands is refered to as the little (meaning the youngest) father. There is no genetic paternity claims attached to the title of big or little father. 81.156.180.208 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article should be added

I believe a link to this article about Dalai Lama should be added to his Wiki page: http://daily.chictoday.com/2008/08/07/the-dalai-lama%e2%80%99s-call-for-a-more-compassionate-world/

Publisher is: Spotlight TM, Walking the Walk on Chic Today. Article Author: Adrienne Papp --Cherylebernard (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The name study of Dalai Lama

The very word Dalai Lama is clearly current practical words in Mongolian language. Dalai means ocean and Lama means monk or priest in Mongolian and very commonly used words. I am sure here in this wiki corner plenty of historians and asian researchers hang around and I hope you people would correct the main page part under proper scientific grounds. As Mongolians say the Mongolian king Abtai khan rewarded this title to Tibetan top monk for his high enlightening contribution to royalty. Orgio89 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For example in Mongolian one would say "Atlantiin dalai" or "Atlantic ocean" in english, and "Enethegiin dalai" - Indian ocean. In Mongolian "Hristiin lam" or in english "Christian monk/priest". Orgio89 (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure "lama" is a current Mongolian word, but it was originally Tibetan. As for "Dalai", what do you want to change? The article already says, "'Dalai' means 'Ocean' in Mongolian".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it 'Hristiin lam' or 'Hristiin lama' in Mongolian for a Christian Priest/Monk? In Christianity monks and priests may be different. I thought lama meant 'teacher' rather than priest/ monk, identical to 'rabbi' in Hebrew or Jewish religion. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reign 1381 or 1391??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.102.107 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I have put in the request, and it has been accepted, this article is now semi-protected!--Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk Walk} 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of times I have to revert vandalism edits on this page appears to be on the increase. Just some days ago I read an interesting approach on the page of User:Alansohn [section; Dumping poop] and I'd be all for it if edits on these sensitive pages would be restricted to registered users only. I'd even go this far as to blocking all IP-based only editors, but for the moment only wish to propose a heightened level of protection. Anyone able to fix that for me / us? Qwrk (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You could put in a request at WP:RFPP but be prepared for a "not enough recent vandalism" response. Generally, a page has to be vandalized 4-5 times a day before semi-protection is considered but you may get lucky. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this fast reply User:NeilN. If the current state is like this then, I'd be inclined to see most current [and potentially future and able] editors be busy with cleaning up teh place, rather than adding new stuff. I've been having plans to add to many an article related to mountaineering, but thusfar every time I come and have a peek I see things being vandalised. It is my nature to arrange and order things, hence no new work / additions come to fruition. Shame...... Qwrk (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ghurka Invasions and Dalai Lama vs. Panchen Lama

The Manchus royal house, being related to the Mongols, followed Tibetan Buddhism. The 5th Dalai Lama, trying to curry Manchu favor, proclaimed the Qing emperors as Chakravartin kings. The Qing Dynasty had a vasted interest in the stability of Tibet. After the Emperor Kang Xi expelled the Dzungars from Tibet and installed the 7th Dalai Lama in 1721, no enthronement of Dalai Lama was official without the Manchu representative present. (The Qing emperors were the Chakravartin kings, remember?) Emperor Qian Long's personal spiritual mentor, Rolpai Dorje, was a Tibetan lama of the Gelug sect. After he destroyed the Dzungars in 1757 and incorporated Kashgaria into China in 1759, he secured the northern border of Tibet. But Nepal invaded Tibet from the south in 1790. The Manchu representative rescued the Panchen Lama as he was the temporal leader of the Tibetan people. (Note that he did not bother with the Dalai Lama as he was only the spiritual leader of the Tibetans.) Qian Long sent in troops to restore order and returned the Panchen Lama to the government seat. The Nepalese Ghurka came again in 1792. Qian Long had to send in rescue troops again to expell the Nepalese. To prevent this from happening again, Qian Long stationed a Chinese garrison in Tibet. Tibet remained a Chinese protectorate until the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911. That's why the PRC thinks it is entitled to march into Tibet in 1959 to "restore order" when Tibet was in chaos again. And that's why the PRC was content to have the Panchen Lama in Tibet and let Dalai Lama go and claim whatever he wants to the Westerners. The Tibetans, of course, don't think the Han Chinese, not being fellow co-religionists, and the Communist leaders, not being Chakravartin kings, have any claim over them.--VimalaNowlis (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1426

The reign of the first Dalai Lama began in 1426, says Joseph de Guignes (Histoire générale des Huns, des Mongoles, des Turcs et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756-1758) ). I have the Turkish version of this book. Böri (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama - descended from Avalokiteśvara

The Dalai Lama (transliterated from the Mongolian language and Tibetan language roughly as "Ocean Priest") is, if my sources are correct, descended from a bodhisattva, namely Avalokiteśvara. I noticed that this was not mentioned in the opening paragraph, although it did say he was reborn from a line of tulkus. I thought it would be valuable information to readers of Wikipedia if it stated who the Dalai Lama was descended from, because if we are going to acknowledge him as a reincarnation, then I believe we must say who he is reincarnated from. This is the explanation for my edit, and I only point this out because I am no expert on Gelug, and I only did this with the best intentions of everybody in mind. Also, note that in forms of Tibetan Buddhism, Avalokiteśvara is known as Chenrezig, however I referred to him by Avalokiteśvara because that is the more common name. --71.191.199.74 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Spiritual and temporal leader"

The first line of the article says, "Dalai Lama is the title given to an individual who is the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhists worldwide." This seems quite unclear and requires a lot more nuance. What does it mean to say that he is the temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhists? So a convert to Tibetan Buddhism living in, say, France, would acknowledge the Dalai Lama as his or her temporal leader? How so? Even to say that the Dalai Lama is a temporal leader of Tibetans in Tibet is highly controversial and not really in evidence. As for whether the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, this is also controversial. There are five major sects of Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyü, Nyingma, Sakya, and Jonang) and the Dalai Lama is the de facto head of one of them. The controversial issue is his role in the other four sects, which are hardly marginal. Traditionally, he has no role. This being the case, it won't due to say that he is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. Pending a rewrite that resolves these issues, I am removing the first sentence.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're aware that this removes a huge chunk of context, right? If it needs to be made more specific, make it more specific. That sentence is the first time in months that the article has started with an introduction which gives the lay reader a reasonable place to start, and its omission isn't a very good idea. I'd much rather it be re-added without "temporal" and with "worldwide" made sect-specific. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I agree that the previous intro was not very good, but the new version was not that great, either, since it led with inaccuracies right off the bat. I like your suggestion, at least as a temporary measure, and I have rewritten the opening sentence accordingly.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The revision is perfect, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes he was seen as spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhist, but in fact this is not true. Before PRC occupation Dalailama was political leader of Tibet, after Chinese invasion he becomes (unnoficial but accepted) representative of Tibetans and Tibet's affair on international stage. His function is is politcal and national, but not religious (except Gelug school). But he is also most popular buddhist teacher (and maybe Buddhist) on the world. In this context sometimes he can be seen as a representative of Buddhism in the modern world. Maybe mixing this two roles (political leadership of Tibet and popularity as a Buddhist teacher) in media made this mistake so common. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of references below which addresses the question above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJY1eK9jQ28&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruuxoDQpSc&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.234.106 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The dalai lama is not a teacher or leader of Buddhism- he is a teacher and leader of tibetan buddhism (lamaism). Buddhism and tibetan buddhism are two different religions by western defintions in the same way Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are two different religions. 81.157.99.169 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that they fall under the category of Buddhism. Similar to Christianity, it has many branches. You cannot deny that they are totally separate religions, just like Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. Prowikipedians (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism amd tibetan buddhism are not simply branches of the same religion, they are different religions by western definition. A Mormon does not agree with the Christianity of a Roman Catholic, and a Roman Catholic will not agree with the 'Christianity' of a Mormon. The dalai lama is accepted by tibetan buddhists as a teacher, he is not accepted by buddhists in general as a buddhist teacher. 81.133.120.149 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama = Spiritual Leader who takes care of you in your next life. Panchen Lama = Temporal Leader who takes care of you in this life. So, strictly speaking, Dalai Lama cannot head a "government in exile". That's why the PRC is hanging on to the Panchen Lama.--VimalaNowlis (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How can the dl = spiritual leader who takes care of you in your next life, when he gets reborn into this life after he dies? Where have you seen the dl take care of anyone? It seems he gets taken care of by everyone else. He certainly appears to have a better life than most of his Tibetan followers, and he's not been seen to make any pilgrimages of kneeling taking a few steps forward, then dropping on his knees and so on. 86.136.143.144 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama lies ?

From the Article:

The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks separate Tibet from China, although he lies to the Western world that he only seeks autonomy.

Surely this cannot be included without very strong evidence. It would be grounds for a libel suit in the UK. 82.13.143.58 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment has been removed from the article. --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

the person who continually adds that line is Lxoe. I have attempted communication with him on his talk page regarding this continuing POV edits. I have also linked him to His Holiness so that he can read and understand the definition. If he reads this discussion page (which, statistically speaking, is unlikely given that most vandals don't care about the community which they vandalize), I also encourage him to read libel and Reliable Sources for wikepedia's policies on spreading lies about living people. If the Dalai Lama were truly a mean-spirited person as this person claims he is, I imagine HH would want to sue Lxoe for posting unsourced and untrue information about him. Interesting catch-22. It's always those who are willing to lie about others who end up victimizing those who aren't willing to victimize. Dragonnas (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (I always forget to sign my comments :P)

Even though Lxoe did not provide adequate sources for his claims, there are articles that talk about protesters calling him a lier like this one from reuters for example. Maybe add to criticism or to the current Dali lama's page? --stanthefisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.131.66 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Dalai Lama lineage, not the 14th Dalai Lama. But even at that page, it would be undue weight to write up this one Reuters article. Bertport (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dalai Lama Twitter feed

I noticed a previous editor added a link, and RegentsPark removed it. While I agree it has no place in the prose section of the article, is there a problem with linking it in the External Links section? Given that it has been officially announced, I would think it qualifies under WP:ELOFFICIAL. Does anyone object to linking it from the EL section? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. The twitter feed duplicates information already provided on the Daiai Lama's official page, which is an inclusion test under WP:ELOFFICIAL. (Though, it would be a marked improvement over having a section titled 'Dalai Lama on twitter'!)--RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it has no place in the article prose. If the main official link also links to Twitter, then I agree there is no justification. Even if it didn't link to the Twitter feed I'd be conflicted, and since it does, I think I agree with you that it is unnecessary. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't link to twitter, but contains the same information. On reflection, if you think it useful, go ahead and add it since it is under the control of the Dalai Lama's office and twitter is an important enough information feed to be of value. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Interview with HHDL where he speaks on his reincarnation

I added an external link to this page titled something like, "An Interview with the Dalai Lama in which he discusses his Own Reincarnation," which linked to the interview here: http://www.yowangdu.com/tibet/hh-dalai-lama/dalai-lama-interview.html

It was removed by someone and then reinstated by YellowMonkey I think, and then removed again apparently. Could I get some insight into why it was removed? This discussion is very relevant to ongoing discussions on what will happen to the role of the Dalai Lama upon his death.

169.230.6.23 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that all this rebirth business is just fantasy, as the dalai lama (and his role) was first created by just another human being. 86.177.121.24 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to justify removal of this link because you believe reincarnation is based on fantasy? Just because the role of Secretary of the Communist Party of China was first created by another human being doesn't mean we should not talk about it, or does it? Perhaps you think the avowedly Marxist Chinese government is better qualified to choose religious leaders such as the Dalai and Panchen Lamas? Do you really believe this is a valid role for such a government? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? It sounds a bit confused to me. Perhaps you think we should remove all reference to religious ideas in the Wikipedia that you judge are "just fantasy"? John Hill (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all the role of Secretary of the Communist Party of China was first not created by another human being, but by a panel of people. The role of the dl was first created by a single Mongolian prince, nearly 2000 years after the death of buddha. Reincarnation is without doubt based on fantasy. The dl is chosen by rolling lumps of dough, this is logically equivalent to drawing straws or tossing coins. I am not so sure that the present government of China could be described as avowedly Maxist; the adjectival phrase used for the past 20 or so years is "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", or perhaps in the west it might be described as capitalism with Chinese characteristics. I think the trouble with John Hill is that he has not realised the pace of reform in China, and with it the introduction of new ideas and finding and putting into practice methods, ways and systems that work well. Like most things, the prototype may not work, but eventually a model that works well is found. Whereas in the west things have stagnated and a believe that the way to solve problems in the west is to tax and tax and tax people, see for instance the proposal to introduce a "bank" tax for the world, the recent proposal in the UK to have a "dog" tax (which was dropped like a hot potato), and the proposal to introduce a "death" tax on top of inheritance tax, and to keep on raising personal income tax. Surely to find out whether people think John Hill's suggestion about religious ideas are fantasy is to have a free vote by all people on how they feel about the matter. However, following the model of The Church of England in which its leaders, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are effectively chosen by the incumbent UK Prime Minister, there is no reason why a dl should not be chosen by representatives of the Chinese government. 86.178.166.194 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Anonymous (User: 86.178.166.194)

Sir or Madam: I certainly don't want to get into a discussion on your interpretation of taxes in the "west" or the rapid rate of change in China (which is, generally speaking, most impressive indeed - I have seen it with my own eyes). But, I will reply to your final suggestion that: "following the model of The Church of England in which its leaders, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are effectively chosen by the incumbent UK Prime Minister, there is no reason why a dl should not be chosen by representatives of the Chinese government."

First of all, the choice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is a very complex process involving both members of Church and state (see: Appointment of Church of England bishops), all of whom are assumed to be Christians, and come from the same British, and English-speaking community.

This is not at all analogous to the Chinese government picking people for positions in the Tibetan Buddhist community. Here we have leaders of an avowedly atheist government, mostly made up of a different ethic and cultural group, speaking a different language and with a recent history of massive persecution of Tibetan Buddhism. Certainly there has been significant reconstruction of destroyed and desecrated sacred and historical sites in recent years, but it has been largely of a cosmetic nature and cannot cover up the ruins of destroyed monasteries and other sites brought about since 1950 which still litter the Tibetan landscape on such an unimaginable scale that it is hard to comprehend.

So, tell me, why members of a government which is avowedly Communist, one still formally based on Marxism - even though supporting growth of a market economy, whose members almost all come from a very different culture and who speak a very different language, and who were preceded by people from the same Communist party who destroyed thousands of monasteries, burned sacred texts, persecuted monks and nuns, all within living memory - should have any say whatsoever in who chooses leaders of the Tibetan Buddhist Church such as the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama, the Karmapa, and the like?

You are mistaken when you say the Dalai Lamas are chosen by "rolling lumps of dough" - it is far more complex than that - you obviously need to do some more reading on the subject and stop making comments about subjects which you obviously know little of. And your suggestion about everyone voting on my religious ideas is ridiculous - as I have not stated any here - I have only raised questions about how (and whether) religious ideas should be discussed in the Wikipedia.

I would also like to bring up a somewhat different point - a simple point of manners. Your rather insulting way of referring to the Dalai Lama (regularly calling him "dl") probably reveals a lot about you and your attitudes. I would never think of referring to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Hu Jintao, as "gs", "hj" or "sec" or any other such demeaning way of addressing him. Neither would I do anything of the sort about the Pope, or a Muslim Inmam or even a representative of a government or church I did not approve of. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you should be disrespectful. We are all fallible humans trying to find our way in, and make sense out of, a difficult, extremely complex, and often very unhappy world. Respect for each other and respect for others' beliefs is essential if we are to have any hope of a peaceful future (or, indeed, a very long future for the human species). Disrespect and dismissal of others' beliefs can only lead to more suffering, more conflict, and less happiness for us all.

Practising tolerance, compassion, kindness and respect is, I believe, our only hope of getting our world out of the horrific mess we have made of it until now. And one does not have to belong to any religion to practise these values - indeed many atheists and agnostics and Communists do try their best to live a good life practising such values, as do many religious people.

And I would like to ask you again to answer a key question I posed which you didn't answer last time - "Perhaps you think we should remove all reference to religious concepts in the Wikipedia that you judge are "just fantasy"? Is this really your position? Come on now - don't avoid it - as it certainly sounds as if this is what you mean. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I envy your tranquile eloquence. Tip'o the hat to you, John. Qwrk (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the current Archbishop of York's native language is English? The English language is the primary language used for the Church of England whether its members are Africans or Asians. Does the Chinese government forbid the use of the Tibetan language, and is Tibetan buddhism restricted to Tibetans in China? The answer is no to both questions. Did Henry the Eighth not seize churches and cathedrals, and burnt a few down along the way?

As to your question "Perhaps you think we should remove all reference to religious concepts in the Wikipedia that you judge are "just fantasy"? It has not even occurred to me you should remove or ban anything. I am all for truth. Mr Hill, since you suggested such a view, was it because you believe we should ban people from finding out the truth? Are you saying we should not be told the torture and mutilations of people done by the Tibetan clergy on other human beings? Do you think Tibet was a peaceful place and the Tibetan people were free from political conflicts and intrigues? Wasn't the use of poison a common tool in removing rivals in Tibetan politics and clergy?

Mr Hill you seem set in your view that Communism is the antithesis of religion. Do you not think one of the reasons for the rise of Communism was exactly because of the sufferings and conflicts imposed upon ordinary people by religion and the theocracy alongside feudalism? What makes people miserable Mr Hill? Do you not think one of the reasons is that religions tell us day in day out that we are sinners, we are born to suffer, and in your religion that we will be reborn and reborn again into more and more suffering? Mr Hill will your religion provide you with antibiotics when you are suffering from a life-threatening infection? Remove the conflict and suffering caused by religion, and you remove a reason for needing communism. So you see Mr Hill, the communists in China will always allow religions, because if the world were free of religions, there would be one less reason for having communism. The dl is just another human being, and it is perfectly respectful to refer to him as the dl, I am just following this shorthand because it has been done time and again in the Wiki discussion pages by other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.6.249 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are all the Dalai Lama's named 'Gyatso'?

Are they related because reincarnation doesn't have to be between relatives. I think someone who is no a gyatso should by the Dalai Lama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. It's not a family surname as we use them in the West – it's the Tibetan word for Dalai (part of his title), which English gets from another language. They are not related in the conventional, family sense. See Dalai Lama#Nomenclature for more details. /ninly_(talk) 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But why wasn't Gendun Drup called Gendun Gyatso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is apparently a tradition that had not yet developed yet at that time. For comparison, note that all of the Karmapas since the 8th have had dorje as part of their names, but the first seven had a variety of names. The 7th Karmapa (whose lifetime overlapped the 1st and 2nd Dalai Lamas), in fact, had gyatso in his name.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the Dalai Lama is called 'Gyatso'

I will quote here from the book by Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, (2006). Grove Press, New York, ISBN 978-0-8021-1827-1, p. 143:

"Now, I have something to say," he [the Dalai Lama] began sternly. "The very name of each Dalai Lama from the Second Dalai Lama onwards had the word Gyatso (in it), which means 'ocean' in Tibetan. Even now I am Tenzin Gyatso, so the first name is changing but the second part (the word "ocean") became like part of each Dalai Lama's name. All of the Dalai Lamas, since the Second, have this name. So I don't really agree that the Mongols actually conferred a title. It was just a translation."

I was caught off guard, unable to accept that so many modern writers had made the mistake of translating Dalai Lama as "Ocean of Wisdom" and that so few see his title as Tenzin Gyatso does. "Does the word, Dalai, in the Mongolian title imply something? Wisdom?"

"No, there is no implication," he nearly shouted at me. "It is just a name!"

I hope this answers any questions about the word "Gyatso" for you. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda

This article should really have a section dealing with the anti-Dalai Lama propaganda prevalent in mainland China. At the least, the vast gulf between the views of the Chinese and the West deserves a mention; it's virtually unparalleled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.132.95 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What does the West know about the dalai lama? As far as I know, every western country is nominally Christian (apart from insignificant places like Bosnia). So by definition the West is anti-dalai lama, as Christianity clearly states that Christianity is the only true religion. All this American President meets dalai lama business is simply political and not because American Presidents believe the dalai lama. 86.176.51.166 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is text-book Chinese propaganda. There is no need to bring religion into politics when comparing the different views of the Westernized world against one prevalent in mainland communist China. The fact of the matter is not which god one follows but the constant attacks faced by the 14th dalai lama, Tenzin Gyatso, by the PRC alongside the constant badgering from the PRC to any and every other nation out there to boycott all talks and moreover any mode of communication by the 14th Dalai Lama.

As for answering your first question, 86.176.51.166 , it might as well could be that the West knows more about the dalai lama than the Chinese. You could look at the method of selecting the 15th dalai lama the PRC picked to clear any doubts concerning how much they actually (do not)know about Tibetian culture.

The talks between the American president and the dalai lama could be political or spiritual or something more along the lines of matters that doesnt concern you, me or anyone else. Calling it as "simply political" reeks of a biased POV and clearly shows that you are in no state of mind to give a neutral view so your opinion doesnt even matter. Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all there is no such a thing as a text-book Chinese propaganda; no more than text-book western propaganda. Secondly, the dl and his selection is not Tibetan culture- if you care to call it a Tibetan culture, then it was actually an imported culture. Thirdly, if the dl is supposed to be a religious leader, then why should he be discussing politics with the US president, when everyone knows mixing religion and politics has a deadly consequence for the world currently seen in the Middle East and parts of Africa. 86.178.77.164 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say I have to agree with Wasted(again) on this one... Mr. "my ip address is all I need to edit wikipedia" (86.178.77.164) seems to think that tibetan culture is an "imported culture" - this is the favorite story told by the Chinese government. Delegitimize the culture of tibet, accuse them of being merely a "province" of China and having no culture of their own, and thus defuse any arguments people might have for Tibetan Independance or self-determination. 86.178.77.164's posts have all the hallmarks of a 50 cent partyer, mindlessly regurgitating the stories endorsed by the chinese government with no clear idea of the logic or rationale (or lack thereof) behind his arguments. Down with propaganda and down with thought police. Dragonnas (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree only to an extent with Wasted and Dragonnas--the part about how the political struggle is very relevant to who the DL is, the at least symbolic role that DL plays, and the nature of his influence. It doesn't matter whether any of us agree with him or not, or whether any of us, or "the West" (whatever that is) believes in the religious doctrine and tradition of which the DL is a part. The article certainly must have substantial content related to the role and significance of the DL--including the purely political role--because that is what the sources almost uniformly refer to and discuss. Steveozone (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Dragonnas, I am not aware the Chinese Government say Tibet is a province. It is, AFAIK, an Autonomous Region. Regions in China AFAIK are classed as provinces, municipalities, autonomous regions, SEZs and SARs. Tibet is an autonomous region. I did not see Dragonnas contribute anything useful in the discussion except for a lot of hot air and vitreolic attacks, unsupported by fact or logic. It is plain to see the present Tibetan religion and its derived culture was an import, in the same way the present major religion (Christianity) amongst European or White people was an import that replaced their traditional cultures. Pointing out this fact does not delegitimize any cultures. Lama propagandists paint a picture that Tibetan culture was destroyed by Han Chinese, when the truth is that the culture of the forebears of the present Tibetans was itself destroyed by Tibetans; a story which is essentially no different to that of any other human civilisation. 86.178.160.10 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.32.159 (talk)

no this is not the place for such a section. if anything, the section should be placed on Tenzin Gyatso's Wiki page; the top very clearly states that this articles is about the lineage. De jure (not just de facto) independence? that question should have been posed many, many years ago; buffet of Chinese land, PART III (except not really, the dragon was not as asleep as it was in Part I/II)!!! As for "imported culture", I would have to strongly disagree because I see no evidence of that. but there is no overwhelming evidence to indicate that the CPG's motive is to fully assimilate all Tibetans: you have to consider the position that Tibetans occupy within the rest of Chinese culture/folklore/conscience. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not give undue weight to the career of the current Dalai Lama. It's worth noting that the 14th Dalai Lama's time in exile constitutes about 8% of the overall history of the Dalai Lamas. This is the sort of thing that should be handled at 14th Dalai Lama.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Dragonnas's "anti-communist" tirade/campaign that he describes on his own profile would morph into these types of separation-wannabe comments. This IP's remarks are more solidly based than Dragonnas could ever imagine. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)