Talk:Dalai Lama

what precisely is a Dalai Lama?

To say "The Dalai Lama is a lama of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" school of Tibetan Buddhism" is like saying "a bishop is a priest in Catholicism." It is true, but it doesn't really help that much. Especially since the next line ("the 14th and current Dalai Lama") seems to mean that 'Dalai Lama' indicates a particular lama of the Gelug school. Can the word "chief" (or "abbott", or whatever is correct) be added before the word "lama" in the first sentence? "The Dalai lama is the head lama of the Gelug school..."? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some clarifications.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I also made some clarifications in the first paragraph, concerning his status within the Gelugpas, and corrected the date of his recognition as the Dalai Lama (it was given as 1950, which was the year when he assumed political responsibility).Sean M Jones (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• The 1st Dalai Lama was not known as the Dalai Lama during his lifetime. Only with the 3rd Dalai Lama does the title arise. For example see the book Tibet: A History, 2011, page 115:

"Thus Sonam Gyatso became the first Tibetan to receive the title Dalai. Since he was the third in a line of rebirths the title was posthumously awarded to his predecessors, which made him the third Dalai Lama."

Yes this is very common knowledge and I totally agree. Sean M Jones (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is debatable that the Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelug school.

It may be considered debatable by some, but not by any Tibetans, and certainly not by the Tibetan Gelugpas themselves. Ask any Gelugpa and they will say their head monk is the Ganden Tripa. What more proof is needed? Some westerners see things differently, true, and would argue the fact, as I wrote it is a common misconception in the west, but who would say that various western commentators and observers know better the answer to this particular question than the Tibetans and the Gelugpas themselves? It is their system. Sean M Jones (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• The 2011 retirement of the Dalai Lama from the CTA has nothing to do with anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your respected opinion that the Dalai Lama's official retirement from all politic activity in 2011 was apparently a totally irrelevant act. However, for the great majority of the Tibetan people who accepted the institution of the Dalai Lama as the spiritual and temporal leader of the country for the last 300+ years, it appears to have been quite significant and much commented on in Tibetan circles as well as in the western news, such as CNN and other major media outlets. The 14th had continued this role of political and spiritual leader before and after his exile and when he announced his retirement from politics it was the first time, interregnums apart, that the institution of the Dalai Lama had not been actively involved in Tibetan politics since the 17th century! Nevertheless, he continues in the role of spiritual leader. Therefore, in the context of this article, which attempts to describe this unique institution of the Dalai Lama (rather than the individual Dalai Lamas themselves who all have their own personal articles elsewhere), his retirement from politics is considered by most Tibetans as a very significant step on behalf of his institution. The whole institution has now changed from being a political and religious one to being only a religious one.

Thank you for wholesale deletion, on 29 April, of all my recent efforts to improve the opening paras of this article as 'original research', VictoriaGrayson! Thanks to your intervention I have now realised that it did not acknowledge opinions such as your own do exist widely in the west, and also that some statements lacked citations. Being new to Wikipedia I am on a learning curve and will try to improve my work accordingly, with less uncited items, no personal conclusions and commentary, no 'peacock' words and a more strictly NPOV! I do appreciate it! But I'll be back, hopefully with a version, better citations and wording that is more acceptable according to your high Wikipedia standards. You are affording me a good training exercise here and I appreciate it. MacPraughan (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Have found an impeccable academic source to confirm Dalai Lamas are not the head monks of the Gelug. Dr Alexander Berzin is quite categorical, I trust this will be acceptable and have corrected the text accordingly and inserted the detailed reference. Hope this settles the discussion amicably. Thanks for the encouragement. MacPraughan (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

When did the political institution of the Dalai Lamas cease?

The political institution of the Dalai Lama ended in the 1950's. Not 2011. The CTA is not a government.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, VictoriaGrayson, this is interesting. Could you possibly be more precise, please, I mean, at which point in the 1950s do you say that it ended: with the Chinese invasion in 1950, on the Dalai Lama's exile in 1959, or at some other time in between? Thanks again, I am very interested to know about the exact point when you feel he stopped being a political institution and I am willing to learn more from you about this. MacPraughan (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The idea that one needs to be in a government in order to be a political institution is also interesting, VictoriaGrayson. How could opposition parties exist, if that were the case, pray? I hope I did not misinterpret your point of saying "the CTA is not a government" (on which point I totally agree).

Wikipedia defines "politics" (lit. from Greek, 'of, for, or relating to citizens') as "the practice and theory of influencing other people," and it defines an institution as "stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior" which, "as structures or mechanisms of social order, govern the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community." So, one doesn't see much in that as a basis to deny that the 14th Dalai Lama continued to represent the political institution of the Dalai Lamas until he resigned from political activity in 2011, does one? Perhaps you could elucidate a little. MacPraughan (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Section on History - is it relevant to this article?

The introduction to the section on History (the history, supposedly of the institution of the Dalai Lamas) makes no mention or reference, even indirectly, to the subject of the article, the Dalai Lama. The next subsection called "Unification of Tibet" makes no mention of the establishment of the Dalai Lamas, nor of the first four Dalai Lamas, however it does refer briefly to the 5th and the 6th. The next section, entitled 'the 7th Dalai Lama', makes very brief and passing reference to the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10, 11th and 12th Dalai Lamas, with practically no details about any of them. In these 3 subsections there is far more written about the apparently irrelevant actions of non-Tibetans; the Dzungars, the Mongols, the Manchus and the Chinese Ambans. Furthermore there is an nice illustration of Kublai Khan who has no mention at all in this whole article, and another nice one of Gushi Khan who has one very brief mention, but there are no illustrations of any of the 14 Dalai Lamas with whom the article is supposed to be exclusively concerned, apart from in the infoboxes. I therefore have a question: what relevance does all this this 'History' text and these illustrations of Mongols have to the supposed subject of the article? It appears to demand a complete re-write, from scratch, to explain the origins and real history of the institute of the Dalai Lamas, how it developed, how it came to dominate the spiritual and temporal history of Tibet from the 17th century to the Chinese communist invasion, and what happened to it after that. Ideally it should include some interesting and accurate details about each of the 14 Dalai Lamas. I look forward to anyone offering an explanations to justify the existing text, and in the absence of same I propose to research the subject and come up with an alternative text that informs the reader more cogently about the actual subject of the article. MacPraughan (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: You commented on my talk page, but it belongs on this talk page: First, there are a few things to clear up. Who considers Dromtön the 39th incarnation-predecessor of the Dalai Lamas? Second, Teacher-Tulkus are demonstrably a creation of the Mongols, starting with the Sakya. His very title is Mongol: talɛ is "the sea". Certainly there is no citable list of recognised Avalokiteśvara incarnations starting some 40-something teachers before the 3rd Dalai Lama, who was the first of his name - the 1st and second were retroactively titled. I think we need to clearly delineate between statements of piety made by Gelug apologists and biographers and factual material. I also saw no information on the Treasury of Lives to suggest he was considered an incarnation. I'd also like to point out that the Gelug founder was inspired by the Kadam rather than actually being Kadampa himself, and hence the need to underline authority by incorporating Kadam luminaries sort of overshadows this claim to authenticity. Do you have citations to demonstrate this?

Second, if there is missing material on the other Dalai Lamas, it could be added. Many of them are ignored as not particularly notable historical figures aside from their political importance as leader of Tibet. Ogress _smash! 18:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting response, Ogress, and for redirecting me here. In reply, yes, firstly Tibetologist Prof. R A Stein is cited as writing in his 'Tibetan Civilisation' that Dromtön is considered to be an incarnation-predecessor of the Dalai Lamas. If Stein is insufficient on his own the assertion is corroborated in translator Glenn Mullin's 'The 14 Dalai Lamas', page 17, where he refers to chapter 23 of one of Atisha's principal works, apparently well-known to Tibetans, entitled Pacho Bucho (Father Dharmas, son Dharmas) the chapter entitled 'Dromkyo Kyerab' ('The Previous Incarnations of Lama Drom Ton Pa'), quote: "Atisha calls Lama Drom an incarnation of bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara and relates the stories of thirty-six previous lives of Lama Drom... because the 1st Dalai Lama was regarded as Lama Dron's reincarnatiob, all 36 of these becamse attached to him and to the subsequent Dalai Lama incarnations". So please refer to Atisha for the complete list. At least some of them, if not all, are detailed in Mullin's book in the following pages, including ten as Tibetan kings. I hope that suffices and that Atisha is not considered a Gelukpa apologist, since he predates the Gelug founder you refer to by several centuries. I am aware and agree that 'Dalai Lama' is a Mongolian title and also that the first two Dalai Lamas we given the title retroactively. I'm also glad you agree with my suggestion that missing material on other Dalai Lamas could be added, they were leaders of Tibet, after all, as you note. Hope this will be acceptable to you. MacPraughan (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Book of the Kadampas, Dharma Father and Sons is by Legspa'i Shesrab (Lekpé Shérap), not Atiśa; he's a student who founded Sangpu Neutok gömpa, which was the mother monastery of the Oral Lineage Kadam school. Since this is an encyclopedia, we'd have to be very specific that the Oral Lineage Kadam introduced the idea that Dromtön was a reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara into Tibetan Buddhism in general (due to its influential position in Tibetan scholasticism and monasticism at the time). We can't claim Atiśa said it because Lekpé Shérap wrote the book... And yes, the other Dalai Lamas seem notable but probably should be kept to a minimum of information about them. If they are independently notable, they deserve their own page, and honestly, if they haven't gotten one by now... Ogress _smash! 22:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Ogress I’m not sure your last sentence sounds like it is written from a NPOV; “and honestly, if they haven’t gotten one by now ... “? What are we to imagine from it? Is it not belittling, saying all those Dalai Lamas are not ‘independently notable’ enough to merit having their own Wikipedia article by now, let alone a mention on the “Dalai Lama” article? You say whatever can be written about them “should be kept to a minimum”. Do you know that every Dalai Lama from one to fourteen has been considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article already? Sorry about this! MacPraughan (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

MacPraughan, you are turning a polite conversation into an unnecessarily unpleasant situation, you came to my talk page and asked my opinion. When I shrugged and said okay, but if they don't already have a section or whatever consider if they are notable, you turn sarcastic and hostile. Sorry, no, I have not been editing the individual Dalai Lama pages; I did some cleanup here and I'm not the Queen of Wikipedia. Ease up, buddy, I don't know what your problem suddenly is. Ogress _smash! 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could feasibly say, Ogress, that Ngok Lekpai Sherab authored Pacho Bucho, but only in the sense described by Thubten Jinpa in his introduction to his rendering of the Book of Kadam (only the core of which is Atisha's Pacho Bucho, 'Father Dharma, Son Dharma', as described by Mullin - not to be confused with the larger work which you refer to as 'Dharma Father and Sons'), which goes as follows:

"Chapter 23 of the Father Teachings concludes with a short colophon that gives an account of the earliest origin of the teachings of the so-called precious book. According to this account, it was Ngok Lekpai Sherap who, at the urging of Mañjuśrī, went to Mount Lhari Nyingpo in Yerpa, where Master Atiśa and Dromtönpa were residing, and requested them to enter into a series of dialogues based upon Bodhisattva’s Jewel Garland. This discussion takes place over three years, and it is said that Ngok then set these dialogues down in the form of a book."

In other words, Ngok may have 'written the book' but he was only acting as Atisha's secretary. Since Dromton was Atisha's disciple, authorship is credited to Atisha rather than to both. So based on this, Mullin's statement on authorship stands up to scrutiny, and yours appears somewhat presumptuous by comparison. In the same intro, Thubten Jinpa explains again in great detail how Gendun Drub (1st Dalai Lama) is considered an incarnation of Dromton, and how Dromton was considered one in a long line of incarnations of Chenrezig going back to very early Tibetan history. Moreover, Jinpa further clarifies Lekpai Sherab's role as author of the Book of Kadam (which includes Atisha's Pacho Bucho text amongst others) as follows:

"Given the specific nature of the oral tradition pertaining to the early, “legendary” transmission of the teachings of the book, I am also inclined to accept that the two figures — Ngok Lekpai Sherap and Sherap Gyaltsen, both of whom met Atiśa and Drom — were responsible for the initial development of, or at least the idea of, a special corpus of Kadam teachings centered on Drom as the spiritual heir of Master Atiśa and, more importantly, as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara.""

So this must be how you came to think that Lekpai Sherab was the author of the Pacho Bucho. Entirely understandable. However, Jinpa further disagrees with you on the creator of the Book of the Kadampas, Dharma Father and Sons, he says in the same intro that it was 'formally compiled by Khenchen around 1302.' But he does credit Nogk with authorship of a lamrim: "there appears to have been a lamrim by Ngok Lekpai Sherap (1018–1115) based on Khutön Tsöndrü Yungdrung’s (1011–75) teachings." So if that is included in the Book of Kadam then Ngok has certainly written a part of it, even if it was based on someone else's teachings, so you would not be entirely wrong in your assertion.

In conclusion, on the basis of Jinpa's introduction to The Book of Kadam corroborating what Mullin and Stein have already researched and written between them on Atisha and the Dromton and Dalai Lama lineage of Chenrezig, and adding a great deal of additional detail, I would go with publishing it in this encyclopedia, citing the sources and being very specific as you suggest.

I do think the other Dalai Lamas deserve a good look at as regards notability, pity that some died young but they all have voluminous biographies about them by Tibetan authors, and quite a bit from western sources too judging by Mullin's body of work amongst others. I will check out why they don't already have their own articles here, as you note. There is a lot in the world that is notable that doesn't yet have an article on it, I read that Wikipedia is a work in progress, that contributors are sought after and encouraged and I am happy to contribute whatever meagre scraps of useful info that I can. The more info about the Dalai Lamas, the better, as far as I'm concerned. MacPraughan (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But the Book of Kadam translator you cite specifically notes the question of its authenticity in his introduction, questioning its original form and its origin story. His conclusion is that while there was likely a core collection of teachings written by Ngok Lekpé Sherap, the “miracle book”, it wasn't until the 13th century that a student of the later Drom wrote down his 'perfect memory' of the “miracle book” that was secretly stored in a pillar. This is firmly within tertön territory; I don't mean invented whole-cloth tertön, but an elaborated, polished public printing of secret oral teachings passed down for hundreds of years. And the printed book claims Ngok Lekpé Sherap recorded the discussion of Atiśa and Dromtön... which once again means he is the author. "Ngok says Atiśa said X." Note this rather crucial comment by Thubten Jinpa, where he denies that the text was Atiśa's, but specifically notes it does likely contain a work (literally 26 stanzas!) by Atiśa. "That Atiśa is the author of Bodhisattva’s Jewel Garland, which became the root text of both the Father and Son Teachings, remains beyond doubt, given its similarities in content, language, and structure to Atiśa’s other recorded works. But there is no obvious connection, apart from the relationship of a root text to its commentary, between the instructions on the sevenfold divinity and teaching, centered especially on the meditative practice of Avalokiteśvara, and Atiśa’s short text, which on the surface pertains to standard bodhisattva practices." Tertön territory, as I said. Jinpa concludes the likely author was Phuchungwa.

You can read the entire intro by here (thank you, Wisdom Publications, for your sexy website): http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/book-kadam/introduction Ogress _smash! 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing,Ogress, when I questioned why all this seemingly irrelevant Mongolian/Kagyu info formed the intro into "History of the Dalai Lama", you replied to inform me yesterday, explaining: "Second, Teacher-Tulkus are demonstrably a creation of the Mongols, starting with the Sakya." Can you explain how, 'demonstrably', please? It does not follow. The 17th Karmapa himself claims that the tulku system was initiated by the Tibetan Karma Kagyus when Pomdraka recognised Karma Pakshi as the incarnation of the first Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa, causing Karma Pakshi to be made the 2nd Karmapa (the first ever tulku), before he ever went to Mongolia. Has the 17th Karmapa got it wrong, according to your account? How did the Mongols manage what you say? And secondly, what exactly has it got to do with the Sakya? I am confused and would like to understand since you appear to know what you're talking about. Why should the whole section not be deleted and we start from scratch, writing about the subject of the article? I am all ears. MacPraughan (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The appearance of the teacher-tulku system is as much a political development related to Mongolian political dominance in Asia as it is Tibetan understanding of the bodhisattva and the teacher-student relationship. I did misspeak about the Sakyas; it was in fact the Karmapas who were first. (I should have remembered given that I recently rewrote that article, but it was late...) Qubilai was his first patron, who he passed over for Möngke, who was the Khagan at the time. His importance in the Imperial Court was followed by the rise of a political elite comprised of newly-minted teacher-tulkus. The coinage of new tulkus never ended since then. And the relationship between the new tulkus wasn't always some random child: the first of the brand-new tulkus of Jamgon Kongtrul in 1902 was the son of the 15th Karmapa. The Sakya, in contrast, had a physical lineage: its leadership passes down through the Khön family. It was the importance of the Sakya as appointed leadership of Tibet by the Mongols that was contested by the Karmapa. Many other lineages followed suit and the carrot of political power is obvious. We can't ignore the giant waving flag of politics in these matters no matter how worldly it seems.

As for why we can't delete that section: well, as the cite says, "The establishment of the teacher-tulku system for the Karma Kagyu lead to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism creating similar systems. (Buswell 2014:421)" It is the ultimate origin of the religio-political power of the Dalai Lama lineage, which ruled Tibet for a Very Long Time. Six sentences is not undue weight when it is literally an explanation for the rise of the tulku system. I'd actually like to make it five sentences, because it seems to me that this bit contains peacock terms: "Before his death in 1283, Karma Pakshi wrote a will to protect the established interests of his lineage, the Karma Kagyu, by advising his disciples to locate a boy to inherit the black hat. His instruction was based on the premise that the Dharma is eternal and that the Buddha would send emanations to complete the missions he had initiated. Karma Pakshi's disciples acted in accordance with the will and located the reincarnated boy of their master.[citation needed]" I actually can probably find a cite but I'd shorten that bit.

So. That's my reply. I didn't mean to sound difficult or whatever, I was just trying to be direct. As for sounding learned: well, I've been wading in deep waters but I doubt many people really understand what is going on in the entire world. Ogress _smash! 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to a Query about whether the Dalai Lamas are incarnations of Dromtön

I have just received a query about a reference I gave many years ago on the WP article on Dromtön. As i think it may have some relevance to the discussion here - I will paste it in below:

Hi Sean! Thanks so much for providing so many details on this interesting query making it easier for me to check. First, I should emphasize that the text I wrote on Dromtön was an attempted brief summary paraphrased from what R.A. Stein said - not an exact quote.

On rereading the whole passage I note that Stein makes a rather complex comment about these incarnations of Avalokiteśvara - one that I find rather difficult to fully understand. It is clear that the present Dalai Lama is considered to be a reincarnation of the First Dalai Lama, and both are incarnations of Avalokiteśvara, as is Dromtön. Whether this makes Dromtön "part of the early lineage of the Dalai Lamas" is, on reflection, beyond my expertise to decide. I think it would be best to put this question to some recognised Tibetan authority on such matters.

The quote I was referring to is as follows:

"Tibet has often been described as a theocratic state. That is true to the extent that, in recent centuries, a central government, has been headed by the Dalai Lama: the incarnation—indirectly, it is true—of Avalokiteśvara, Tibet's patron bodhisattva, whose statue stands in the capital. There was a precedent for this: the same deity had already been incarnated in Tibet's first centralizing king, Songtsen Gampo, who at his death dissolved and melted into the same statue. It would be more accurate, however, to speak of an ecclesiastical state: first, because other hierarchs have ruled the whole or part of Tibet, some also incarnations and others not; but mainly because the Dalai Lama is not, any more than the Panchen Lama or any other incarnate lama, Avalokiteśvara's direct incarnation, repeated every time. Like all the others, he is the rebirth of the historical figure he was in his preceding life, a link in the chain that starts in history and leads back through legend to a deity in mythical times. The First Dalai Lama, Gedün-trup (1391-1474), was already the 51st incarnation; the teacher Dromtön, Atiśa's disciple (eleventh century), the 45th; whilst the 26th, one Gesar king of India, and the 27th, a hare, we are in pure legend." Stein (1972), pp. 138-139.

It may help anyone trying to decide whether the Dalai Lamas are considered to be reincarnations of Dromtön to consider the following quote:

“Who is the Dalai Lama? A man? A monk? A god? Leonard van der Kuijp surveys the prehistory of the Dalai Lama as a divinity, as the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. How and when did the Dalai Lamas come to be associated with the most important Buddhist celestial being in Tibet? Van der Kuijp provides answers to these questions in this study of the history of an idea. If the Dalai Lamas are the most famous embodiments of Avalokiteśvara in Tibet, they are by no means the first leaders to have been identified with the bodhisattva. Van der Kuijp places the origins of the tradition as early as the eleventh century, when the institution builder Dromtön was invested with the authority and status of Avalokiteśvara by his Indian guest, the Buddhist scholar Atiśa. In Atiśa’s telling, Dromtön was not only Avalokiteśvara but also a reincarnation of former Buddhist monks, laypeople, commoners, and kings. Furthermore, these reincarnations were all incarnations of that very same being, Avalokiteśvara. Van der Kuijp takes us on a tour of literary history, showing that the narrative attributed to Atiśa became a major source for both incarnation and reincarnation ideology for centuries to come.” From: “The Dalai Lamas and the Origins of Reincarnate Lamas. Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp” In: The Tibetan History Reader by Tuttle and Schaffer, 2013, p. 335.

I hope I haven't made this rather complex area of Tibetan Buddhist theology even murkier. I think we need expert help to make a final decision. I do hope it can be resolved satisfactorily.

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)