Talk:Karmapa controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



The Situation with this page 10/26/05[edit]

A lot of people of all persuasions have been making an effort to keep this article informative and NPOV, and I think that is commendable. I recommend that, going forward, all controversial edits should be acompanied by an explanation on talk (as was earlier suggested by Billion), and any that aren't should be automatically reverted. Otherwise, the editing process is destructive, repetitive and endless. If there is some explanation at least there is some possibility of agreement & consensus.

One open issues at hand:

1) Whether or not to allow the claim that "most lamas," "most Kagyupas," "most Tibetans," support UTD. I don't think there is any way to substantiate this claim unless we commission a poll. However, I see no problem with each side listing the respective lamas on their side. Deleting this is just suppression of information, plain and simple. Agree or disagree?

2) I've changed the format somewhat regarding links and references, so that it is clear what is coming from where. I propose that, because POV is clearly identified, each side should have the liberty to do as they wish with their respective lists. Agree or disagree?GZ -10/27/05

moved from Karmapa[edit]

This discusion, moved from Karmapa, is a bit of a dog's dinner having been edited by people with an interest in one side or other of the dispute, and a few people trying to bring it back to NPOV. It now completely lacks structure. I'm not sure how to approach a controversial topic like this. Billlion 19:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great idea to move it out of the way from the original Karmapa entry. I have added in some structure and edited the two-sentence general info at the beginning. I will put in some work to describe the Thaye Dorje side from NPOV, since this is the side I know more about. I think it would best if someone who knows more about the other side could expand his bio and point of view of his supporters. AndyBrandt 19:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good start I had the same sort of structure in mind. I know someone people involved in Urgyen Trinley Dorje's side of Kagyu and will see if one of them will contribute. Billlion 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some historical prospective. I propose to follow with an account of quarrel around 17th Karmapa based on facts both sides can agree. Claims and accusations should be put in their respective sections. When claimants bios would be expanded enough moving them to separate pages should be considered. I would continue to expand the story adding information about the controversy itself, hopefully maintaining the NPOV. AndyBrandt 22:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some more story-telling but I’m unable to do more. My source about the whole story is mainly Tomek’s book mentioned on the page. I think someone who knows more about the subject should continue the story. Also, some sort of a short timeline would be a good idea. AndyBrandt 21:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Billion, whoever you are. When I have made changes, than to come to the historical facts. NPOV does not mean in this case, that we are discussion the question of having a pope and a anti-pope. In our case there is a truth, and this is known. This should be the result of NPOV! Fernando

Note to newcomers[edit]

Welcome to those who are interesd in the Karmapa controversy especially if you are new to wikipedia. Please remember to strive for a Neutral Point of View, and that we are writing an encylopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Also please remember to put comments in the Edit summary box so others can see what you have done, and to use this discussion page especially to discuss things on the page you disagree with so that we can try to reach a consensus. Also there have been lots of anonymous edits to this page, and it would be really nice if some of you created an account so we could get to know you better, and see who writes what. Billlion 21:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Needs attention?[edit]

Shall we remove the needs attention tag yet? Of course we are still waiting for someone to add the claims of supporters of Urgyen Trinley Dorje, but the whole thing looks a lot better after recent efforts especially by Andy. Have suggested to several people I know who are associated with Samye Ling that they might have a go, so I expect that will be forthcoming soon. Billlion 17:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added some kind of account of the UTD side's point of view. Also I have just been passed an advance copy of a book on UTD by Gaby Naher, and so added a section of references to which I a have moved, and ISBN'd, the reference to the other book. I have not had a chance to read Naher's book yet, so I really know nothing about this beyond what I can read on the web. So please, anyone who knows better get editing the section on the claims of his supporters.


Would someone be so kind as to date the statement that the two current claimants have not yet met? I.e., "the two have not yet met, as of such and such a date." Thanks! --- Eiríkr Útlendi 06:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Billlion! --- Eiríkr Útlendi 00:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I have not read all the references, but have tried to edit the brief reviews given to be NPOV and indicate which claimant each book supports, or is associated. Please check if you know the books better, but please do not make POV comments based on your own opinion of the controversy. Billlion 18:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think, that the references should be categorized to "Thaye Dorje side", "Urgyen Trinley Dorje side" and "Neutral" references. Raphael Wegmann, 17.6.2005

Raphael, please go ahead and try to do this if you can! Billlion 15:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Billion, whoever you are. When I have made changes, than to come to the historical facts. NPOV does not mean in this case, that we are discussion the question of having a pope and a anti-pope. In our case there is a truth, and this is known. This should be the result of NPOV! Fernando

Jigme Rinpoche (disambig wanted)[edit]

There is more than one Jigme Rinpoche, although it seems that the easiest one to find through Google (born in 1949 IIRC) is the one meant in the current version of the article. Even so, some effort to disambig it further is welcome. Luis Dantas 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Hi Luis, it is indeed, as referred to in the article in the same sentence, the brother of Shamar Rinpoche, so there should not be more questions.Fernando Schlottmann 31 October 2005

Last changes on Recent developments[edit]

The last changes were: "Thaye Dorje's side claims, that it was established for the purpose of administring Rumtek Monastery in the absence of a Karmapa reincarnation. This actually fits with the statute of the trust, which consists of several secondary members and one central figure. The main member, the Karmapa, is the actual head of the trust. In case of the death of the main trustee, the others take over with its management by means of majority vote.

The trust has been victorious before the court in all preliminary stages without exception.

Urgyen Trinley's supporters claim that since 1981 Rumtek monastery has been primarily managed by Gyaltsap Rinpoche, who has periodically resided there. Gyaltsap Rinpoche has excused himself as a proper party from the court case and is thus not contesting in that regard any longer."

Is this reasonable and correct? I just reverted it to give the possibility to discuss it. If it is correct and neutral please add it again or correct it. Kt66 15:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed until a source other than Thaye Dorje's website can be referenced. Csbodine 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Australasian subplot[edit]

While the article mentions Beru Khyentse as a supporter of Thaye Dorje, his position seems to be a lot more layered than that. Surely it would be fair to post a link to his letter on the subject, in which he states that he has attempted to act as a peacemaker between the two sides.

Trawling round the web, it appears that there's an entire Oz-NZ subplot generated by the hostility towards Beru Khyentse over his assumed support for Thaye Dorje. It seems to involve a battle over a Karma Kagyu centre in New Zealand, possibly (I'm surmising here) the collapse of a KK centre in Sydney, (Karma Donag Choling) and problems with Beru Khyentse's land in southern NSW.

I realise it's not neccessarily the role of Wikipedia to itemise every facet of the Karma Kagyu's internecine battles. However, this site appears to be the only repository of objective, or at least, bi-partisan accounts on the Karmapa bunfight. As the contributors appear to be well-informed, would it be possible for some of you to shed some light (NPOV, of course) on these machinations involving Beru Khyentse, his supporters, adversaries and the whole Antipodean circus? Perhaps it could be given a separate heading. All I've gleaned is from the Web, here's a link to a BK site which explains the state of play and the above letter:

Angela 07:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Angela, as none else has replied yet maybe you know as much as anyone here on this topic so far. From your IP address I guess you are in Australia or NZ at the moment. Can you find anything in the press on this? Although the press is not always reliable it at least is a source that can be referenced. If you feel you have enough information to add a short section feel free to do so as if there are people who know more it will encourage them to contribute. Best wishes Billlion 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the source (somewhere on the internet), but I believe that Beru Khyentse's position is that he accepts both candidates. When Thaye Dorje came to Bodhgaya (I think) Behru Khyentse invited him to stay at his monastery. This offended the Orgyen Thinley camp so that they shunned B.K.R. B.K.R. insists that Orgyen Thinley is also welcome at his monastery but the offer has so far not been accepted.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


when Beru Khyentse came to France in 2003(?) he visited Dhagpo Kagyü Ling. A disciple of him and Ogyen Trinle told me, that the campp of Ogyen Trinle put a lot of pressure against him, as he visited Dhagpo... They wouldn't invite him anymore. Sad story . The link doesn't work. here's another with Beru's letter from 2003: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshe108 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What the heads of the other schools said[edit]

I added: "The head of the Sakya school, H.H. Sakya Trizin and the present head of of the Nyingma school, H.H. Mindoling Trichen Rinpoche also recognised Urgyen Trinley Dorje as the present 17th Karmapa." this information was given me in the past, but I doubt if there is a reference for this. Does anybody know? Otherwise I feel I should remove this, if there is no valid source. Who knows something or has a source for this claim? Thank you, Kt66 15:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am aware that it does not prove anything about the official stance of H.H. Sakya Trizin. I do have a photograph of Urgyen Trinley Dorje and Sakya Trizin speaking together. Something that might be taken to indicate at least some form of approval.Zenshaft 17:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It really means nothing as this link has Sakya Trizin meeting Thaye Dorje. [1]. One the other hand, there is also this hearsay quote from Thrangu Rinpoche [2]. Csbodine 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right. It tells not much. But if there is no evidence for the added section and nobody can support it by a quote, I will remove it in the next 5 days. Because I want to spread also no hearsay. Kt66 19:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just found the quote of that addition: "Karmapa Urgyen Trinley Dorje" by Ken Holmes, ISBN: 3-89568-027-3, page 56. So I will re-add it. --Kt66 10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe someone can improve grammar and spelling of that passage...Thanks a lot,--Kt66 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the article says, "After checking it the 14th Dalai Lama confirmed their recognition that Urgyen Trinley Dorje is the reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa." Is this correct? I have had the impression (based on statements by supporters of Trinley Thaye Dorje) that there was basically no checking done before the Dalai Lama signed off on Ogyên Trinlê Dorje. Also, is "confirmed" the right word here? "Confirmed" seems to imply not just an assertion on the Dalai Lama's part, but a pre-existing role that he fulfills, which is, of course, extremely controversial.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Nat. It is long ago when I read different sources on that controversy to remember now correctly, what source and the exact phrase. If there is no source we have to remove it. If I come across it in the future we can re-include. --Kt66 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't anyone consult oracles, or perform a mo? I can't imagine that His Holiness signed off on Urgyen Trinle without at least performing a simple mo with tsampa balls, which is generally quite accurate (at least, in His Holiness hands anyway). It just seems crazy that no one would go to an oracle to check, but then, I don't know which one one would go to. I don't suppose it would be Nechung, at any rate. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

About the endorsers[edit]

For outsiders, the list of endorsements of the different candidates by various luminaries is one of the more important parts of this article. However, I was vaguely dismayed to discover that more than one of the endorsers listed are not adults and therefore not really in a position to make an informed endorsement. For instance, we are listing, among the supporters of Urgyen Trinley Dorje: the 4th Jamgon Kongtrul, the 3rd Kalu, and the 11th Pawo, who are currently 12(?) years old, 15 years old, and 12 years old, respectively. The article doesn't say when they gave their endorsement; it may have been when they were considerably younger. In each case, their predecessors died before having an opportunity to accept or reject either candidate. We should try to figure out which of the putative endorsers are actually in a position to give their informed assent, and remove those who aren't from the list. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would make more sense to just note in the article that those tulkus are still young, and may be aligned with Ugyen Trinley Dorje more by way of their organizations than by personal discernment.Sylvain1972 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point: these people may be children, but each has his own entourage (labrang) whose opinions might be relevant, and which will very likely end up strongly influencing the tülku's opinions as an adult. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording a bit since Trungpa Rinpoche is 17 and Kalu Rinpoche is 16 - I wouldn't call them children exactly. However, I also added what seems to be a pertinent point, that all of those lamas are young enough to have been recognized after the split.Sylvain1972 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, "minors" is more accurate than "children". Although I do wonder how old Kalu and Choseng were when they made their statements supporting Urgyen Trinley Dorje—an academic question, since it's hard to imagine them changing their minds about it. Also, I wonder if it's worth noting that Choseng Trungpa (and maybe some of the other endorsers?) lives in China, where he is certainly not at liberty to decide which Karmapa he will support.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) - PS: It might also be worth mentioning that Urgyen Trinleh has apparently recognised a lot more tülkus than Trinleh Tayeh has, most notably important ones like Jamgön Kongtrül and Pawo. I'm not quite sure why the Trinley Thaye faction lets this situation stand, especially since the Karmapas are supposed to be known for their ability to recognise a lot of tülkus, and especially since Pawo and Jamgön Kongtrül are almost certain to grow up to become influential Urgyehn Trinleh supporters.

That's a good point. One can't help but wonder whether we will have doubles of everyone from now on, or what. Alternate Karma Kagyu universes entirely. Sylvain1972 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize but this has already been happening, with the 4th Jamgon Kongtrul, for instance. Sylvain1972 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that correct? There are two Jamgön Kongtrüls? That's remarkable. Can you provide details?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes - you can read about Thaye Dorje's here: and Ugyen Trinley Dorje's here: The Dalai Lama did a hair cutting for both of them, apparently. The more doubles that get created, the less likely some kind of rapprochement seems. Or at least, the more convoluted the ex post facto explanation is going to have to be. Sylvain1972 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Still, the Jamgön Kongtrüls, at least, have a history of splitting in twain.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche[edit]

As far as I know H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche is speaking on a balanced view on it and he never took any site of the two Karmapa candidates. So why is is mentioned as supporter of Venerable Thaye Dorje? Does anybody know more? Should we changes this? Thank you. Kt66 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true. There is a relevant letter from him on the matter here, [3], in which he says he believes both Karmapas are legitimate. Perhaps the article should be changed to reflect that. Sylvain1972 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK I will do it. Kt66 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Good call. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent reversion[edit]

I made some changes to this page, providing an update to the Rumtek court case information and correcting the paragraph on the history of the recognition of the Karmapas. It was reverted back to its original form by someone who said my changes were biased.

I'm aware this is a touchy subject and I did not intend to offend anyone.

I'd like to know what the person who reverted the page thought was biased about the changes.

Thanks. Rebecca

You deleted the balanced section on the Lamas who were in the past responsible for the recognition of the Karmapa and added a more biased version which gives the impression that Sharmapa Rinpoche was most time the responsible one. As far as I know this is not the case. A balanced section on that topic has to mention the different cases in a balanced manner. (This is the case with the actual version which you deleted.) Further we had the case here, that unproofed claims were added to the article about Rumtek court case. Thats why it will be well if you introduce at first your wished changes at the discussion page and that you give the sources for these changes. Than we can discuss it, people can proof it, before the changes are put in the article. Thank you very much, Kt66 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's take the paragraph on who recognized the Karmapas first. The list I used is from Buddha's Not Smiling by E. Curren. Mr. Curren is, admittedly, a student of Shamar Rinpoche. Of this information in his book he says, "This information is taken from a chart submitted in 2004 by Geoffrey Samuel, professor of anthropology at the University of Newcastle in Australia . . " as part of an affidavit in a case before the High Court of New Zealand. Curren quotes Samuel, "For the first thirteen Karmapas, their [referring to Nik Douglas and Meryl White's book Karmapa: The Black Hat Lama of Tibet, Samuel's primary source] account is based on the Zla ba chu Shel gyi phreng ba ('Moon Water Crystal Rosary') by the 8th Situ . . . supplemented by two earlier sources. For the 14th and 16th Karmapas, it is based on the spoken commentary of the 16th Karmapa. Both sources should be acceptable to all parties in the present dispute."

What source is the original from?

As to the Rumtek court case, are you disputing that the Indian Supreme Court declined to overturn the earlier courts' decisions or that the final decision is pending? I don't have access to court records, but can point to this Asia Times article from 2004 .

What do you think?


Since I haven't had a response, I'm thinking you may want the specifics of the changes I made.

I added "Trinley" to Thaye Dorje's name and updated "As of early 2006, they have not met".

I changed the three middle paragraphs on the recognition of the Karmapas as follows:

"Karmapas are self-recognizing. That means that many incarnations (seven out of sixteen) claim very early in life to be Karmapa, recognize associates and colleagues of the previous incarnation, and have been generally remarkable for their age (see history of previous incarnations). Also, each Karmapa has left indications leading to his next re-birth, often in the form of a letter. In such letters, indications regarding the location and parentage of the next incarnation were included, though usually in a poetic form that is difficult to decipher.

They are not always selfrecognizing. So the passage "Karmapas have often been self-recognizing." is more clear and precise than your suggestion. --Kt66 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the closest associates of the previous incarnation play a crucial role in the process of recognizing the next Karmapa. After all, it is they - adult and fully realized Buddhist masters - who have been closely associated with the previous incarnation and will have to raise and teach the new one.

It is clear that at different times different Lamas recognized HH Karmapa. --Kt66 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The process of recognition has involved different lamas since the first recognition in the early 13th century. Of the past Karmapas, Shamar Rinpoche has recognized the 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th. Situ Rinpoche has recognized the 8th, 9th (with Shamar Rinpoche), 14th and 16th (with Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche) Karmapas. Gyaltsap Rinpoche has recognized the 7th and 13th Karmapas. The other incarnations were recognized by other Kagyupa lamas."

According to your list Sharmapa has not recognized the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 13th and 15th. Your change seems to me as mere a policy to push Sharmapa in the article and delete the balanced section we have now. So I can not agree to your changes. Perhaps you can include the recognitions of Sharmapa without deleting the other points in that section? Than there is a contradiction: in the article it is said, that Shamar Rinpoche has recognized the 6th and 10th Karmapa. So we have perhaps at first to get this topic more deeply and to check it with different sources. Thank you very much. --Kt66 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it and found this list: Khenpo Tcheudrak summarizes the history of the various recognitions of Karmapa in the following way:

  • 7 of the previous Karmapas left written instructions behind.
  • 5 of them left oral instructions with a disciple of their choice.
  • 4 of them left neither written nor oral instructions. The reincarnation in those cases themselves made clear who they were. So there wasn't a procedure of finding them on the basis of any written or oral instructions left behind.

Furthermore, among the previous Karmapas:

  • 3 were identified by 3 of the previous Shamarpas.
  • 2 were identified by one of the heads of the Drugpa Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism.
  • 1 was identified by a Nyingma master. The head of the Drugpa Kagyu and the Nyingma master were assisted, in their quest, by various Kagyu lamas, such as one of the Situpas, one of the Jamgon reincarnation and one of the Khyentse reincarnation." at

According to this source you can see just three are recognized by Shamarpa Rinpoche directly. Kt66

There is obviously some disagreement in the sources, but I can assure you that I have not made anything up to "push" Sharmapa. I just had a look at Karmapa, the Black Hat Lama of Tibet. In the Appendix about the Sharmapas they are credited with all of the recognitions I have listed. The book cites original Tibetan sources for this information. What do we do? Rebecca 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I updated the paragraphs under "Recent Developments" as follows:

"Control of Rumtek monastery, the seat of the 16th Karmapa in exile, is hotly contested between its rival claimants. In 1961 the 16th Karmapa established the Karmapa Charitable Trust under a provision of Indian law that allows reincarnate lamas to safeguard their assets in the period between their death and their reincarnation's coming of age.

Urgyen Trinley's followers claim that the trust was solely established for the sake of seeing to the welfare of the Karmapa's followers, to provide funds for the maintenance of the monastery, for the monks medical fees, and so forth. Thaye Dorje's supporters claim that Tai Situpa attempted an end run around the other members of the Trust and when he was unable to accomplish this, he and Gyaltsab Rinpoche took over Rumtek by force in 1993. The dispute over Rumtek has been working its way through the Indian court system every since.

In July of 2004 the Indian Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a group created by Gyaltsab Rinpoche and let stand an earlier decision of the Sikkim District Court and a subsequent confirmation by the High Court in New Delhi which determined that Gyaltsab's group had no legal claim to Rumtek and that the Karmapa Charitable Trust is legally entitled to manage Rumtek.

The final legal decision is still pending as of early 2006."

I know to less to say something to that. Please wait a while if someone can look at it who knows more and please tell your source for your change on that. Thank you for your cooperation. --Kt66 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments? Rebecca

Rebecca, thanks for entering in to the helpful spirit we are trying to encourage on this controversial page by discussing your changes. Can I ask for a source for Rumtek being taken over by force? I suspect both sides would not agree on this so it may be necessary to say "according to... by force" or something of that nature. Also please consider registering with a user name, as it is then easier to see who is doing what. Anonymous edits tend to be treated with more suspicion for obvious reasons. Then you can sign your comments with four tildes and it does this:- Billlion 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Billion! I have a user name, but maybe I didn't sign in when I made the changes. I will from now on.

The statement about Rumtek is prefaced with "Thaye Dorje's supporters claim . . .". The only sources I have are, of course, from people who support Thaye Dorje. There's the detailed report in Buddha's Not Smiling. There's the eyewitness account by two of the 16th Karmapa's monks who were present at the takeover, which is published in the report of the International Karma Kagyu Conference in New Delhi in March of 1996. There are a number of newspaper articles that repeat the story. None of these will convince folks firmly on the other side of the divide. That's why I prefaced the statement as I did. There is no doubt that Thaye Dorje's supporters claim that Rumtek was taken over by force after other, more covert, attempts failed.

Now lets try that four tilde thing and see if it works. Rebecca 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you only rely on one source it will not help I think. Read the [statement from the Tsurphu Labrang] regarding a misinformation campaign about pending litigation in India first please. (I do not know if it helps. What I know is how careful one has to be in these cases. --Kt66 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not relying only on one source, although I am relying largely on sources which support Thaye Dorje. The single exception is the series of articles by Julian Gearing published in the Asia Times. Mr. Gearing has no connection to either camp and appears to have researched his articles most thoroughly. The source you cite supports Urgyen Trinley. That's fine, but I don't see that it proves anything. Since neither of us appears to have access to the court records or to an Indian lawyer, we must rely on the sources available to us. What's to be done? Rebecca 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok we will see what other editors will say I just read the article a little bit. I found no proofs where it states "...and Gyaltsab Rinpoche took over Rumtek by force in 1993." what you wish to put in the article... Other passages are a little bit funny and not serious to me like that HHDL used black magic to kill the 16th Karmapa!? Even when he just cites hearsay...So I can not follow your assumption that "Mr. Gearing has no connection to either camp and appears to have researched his articles most thoroughly." The opposite seems to be the case and as you see the source added above by me contradicts it...However I AM NO SPECIALIST IN THE KARMAPA DEBATE. I just felt your changes biased and asked to discuss it. We will see what specialists will say or not say to that. Who knows. Thank you very much.--Kt66 23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gearing and the black magic rumour[edit]

The Dalai Lama uses black magic to kill the 16th Karmapa!? That's not only not serious at all, such kind of fake-information is dangerous and fanatic. Sorry to say, one can read the last days of the 16th Karmapas life in "Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying". It becomes clear, that the 16th Karmapa, a realised master of the highest caliber, used his illness to take away different kind of obstacles from beings, suffering around him. That's why he got sick, thats why he choose Chicago, a city well known for it's gigantic butcher- and meat-industries, as domicile for his last month. His own bodhisattva-activity produced different kinds of severe illnesses within his body. Giving the information that such things only happened through black-magic from the Dalai Lamas side, is a very, very dirty manner to cause trouble between Kagyu- and Geluk-devotees and to give even more fuel to the long-burning karmapa-controversy. --12 Tenma 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In the article you refer to, Julian Gearing writes, "Some older Karma Kagyu followers still suspect the Dalai Lama of using black magic to kill the 16th Karmapa, who died of cancer. Such extreme views, however, are not held by the majority of Tibetans." He identifies the idea as extreme and rare, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's trying to stir up trouble or that he is less than objective on the Karmapa issue. He does not say that he agrees with this idea, only that some people still hold it.

In the late 1970's the XVI Karmapa came to our Santa Cruz KTC for two days. I was the president of the cente at the time. The room he stayed in was usually occupied by a friend and roommate that was a Gelugpa student. (We didn't have enough Kagyu students to fill the house.) She had a picture of the Dalai Lama in her room that the 'Vajra Guards' (Trungpa's people) insisted be removed, saying that the Dalai Lama was trying to kill the Karmapa. I spoke to H.H. about the issue of the picture personally, and he said, "His Holiness and I are on very good terms." That is direct from the horse's mouth to a first person witness--me. My name is John Keefer76.172.93.217 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other editors, as Kt66 suggests. Anybody have any thoughts? Rebecca 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To use nonsense hearsay in an article is not serious to me. The point is: Why mention it, when it is not followed by the majority of Tibetans? I think like 12Tenma: it splits Gelug and Kagyu, because the article says "Some older Karma Kagyu followers still suspect the Dalai Lama of using black magic to kill the 16th Karmapa..." So it gives the hearsay a base on top of elder (experienced) Kagyues. None of my Kagyue Lamas ever told such heavy rumours. FunWang 22:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gearing is making the point that the relations between the 16th Karmapa and the Dalai Lama or at least the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile were not always cordial and that this has left some people with these extreme opinions. He's a journalist. He's reporting the opinion, not because he thinks the opinion is true, but to illustrate how some people feel about the situation.

I'm not sure that it's useful to get into a wrangle about this one sentence in the article. The ultimate point, as I see it, is that Julian Gearing is a journalist who has been covering Asia for twenty-some years and that he does not have a prior connection with either faction in the Karmapa issue. His statement regarding the Rumtek case before the Supreme Court of India (which is where we started on this) is at least as much to be trusted as the statement of the so-called "Tsurphu Labrang," which is, not surprisingly, partisan. If you don't like Gearing, then we should still be able to change this part of the article to include the claim of Thaye Dorje's supporters regarding the court cases cited.

As for the other issue of who recognized which Karmapa when, I think we may have to rewrite that part of the article to reflect the fact that different sources give us different answers. I'll work on that over the next few days and post it here. Rebecca 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further comments[edit]

I think it's going to be very difficult for us to get really neutral information on this subject no matter what we do. I've recently finished reading two books about it: Tomek Lehnert's book and The Dance of 17 Lives by Mick Brown. Neither strikes me as very fair and balanced. Lehnert gives the impression that he is not even trying to be neutral. Brown, on the other hand, tries, but he comes across as a Spiritual Tourist (the title of one of his earlier books) who was wowed by the Dalai Lama and the Urgyen Chiley Dorje people from the outset. Together, they provide a little bit of balance, but it remains quite difficult to determine what is factually true and what isn't. This is in part because both sides have engaged in their fair share of mendacity, sometimes cooperatively. For instance—althhough it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article yet—there is the matter of the putative "original prediction letter" from the 16th Karmapa: this was supposedly found in the mid-1980s and was enshrined in a box, where it was the object of many prostrations and a lot of veneration while the four regents (Shamarpa, Tai Situpa, Jamgon Kongtrul, and Gyaltsab Rinpoche) supposedly waited to make the contents public. The Tai Situpa later revealed that the whole thing was a lie: there had never been a prediction letter in the box at all. Mick Brown says that all four regents were in on the deception, whereas Lehnert doesn't say whether or not the Shamarpa was (you would expect he would tell you if Shamarpa wasn't). Once all of the principals have had their credibility impeached, it's hard to know what's really going on.

You're right that discovering neutral information on this subject is difficult, if not impossible. You're also right that Rogues in Robes is not an attempt to be "fair and balanced"; it was a straight up presentation of the story from Tomek's perspective and was presented as such. I think Buddha's Not Smiling does a better job of presenting both sides of the story, although Erik Curren is still a student of Shamar Rinpoche, so nothing he writes is likely to be accepted by "the other side." Curren does cover the announcement by the four regents of that earlier non-existent prediction letter and provides insight into why the Rinpoches would have done such a thing.
I think this Wikipedia article has done a good job, at least in some parts, because it has presented both factions' claims and has not tried to decide which is right.

Looking at the revisions under discussion now, they look like a mixed bag. Some of them were just minor updates, which are a good thing and appreciated.

Kt66's version of the "self-recognizing" passage is clearly better. "Karmapas are self-recognizing. That means that many incarnations (seven out of sixteen) claim very early in life to be Karmapa" doesn't make much sense, since the first sentence implies that it should be all of them, not 7 of 16. However we phrase it, this passage is problematic and I don't know what to do about it, because there are no unbiased historical sources that I am aware of that verify the self-recognition of earlier Karmapas. It's a bit like an article on the Catholic Pope saying, "Popes are chosen by the College of Cardinals in strict submission to the will of God."

The Karmapas are said to be "self-recognizing" because 1) they leave instructions, either as a letter or as some other kind of message, recognizing their subsequent incarnations and 2) because they reveal themselves in their Dharma activity, making the recognition by others secondary. That is my understanding of the term. Perhaps we could say: "Kagyus believe that the Karmapas are self-recognizing; that they reveal themselves through their Dharma activities and through the statements of past holders of the title."
I would like to know the source of the statement that only seven out of sixteen Karmapas claimed the identification early in life.
Your rewording "Kagyus believe ..." is probably what we will have to do, although I hate to see that additional complexity added to sentences (a lot of times there's no alternative). As for the "7 out of 16", I'd like to know the source, too; I was just commenting that the two sentences contradicted each other. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning, "The process of recognition has involved many different lamas ..." contains two different issues. There's a factual claim about which Karmapas were recognised by which lamas; I can't really comment on that (we might wind up having to say, "Source X says ABC, but Source Y says DEF.") There's also a wording issue: "many" seems like a bit of an overstatement to me. The rest of the wording of the current version seems a bit confusing and should be cleaned up.

I agree the paragraph needs to be cleaned up. I also agree that we may have to rewrite this paragraph to reflect the different claims. It should be noted that Kt66's source is a lama who supports Thaye Dorje. Obviously the difference of opinion does not arise out of the current controversy, although it is being used to support one faction or another.
Did you mean to say UTD? Is it correct that both sources are from Thaye Dorje supporters? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Kenpo Chodrak Tenphel, who Kt66 quoted, supports Thaye Dorje. The source I quoted, Karmapa, the Black Hat Lama of Tibet by Douglas and White, is a book that predates the controversy and had the approval of the 16th Karmapa. I don't know which faction, if any, the authors support now. Rebecca 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the Karmapa Trust was established "under a provision of Indian law that allows reincarnate lamas to safeguard their assets in the period between their death and their reincarnation's coming of age" needs to be factually verified. It is also potentially misleading if the Karmapa's motive for founding it was not, in fact, to safeguard his assets, or if this motive is disputed. As for, "Thaye Dorje's supporters claim that Tai Situpa attempted an end run around the other members of the Trust", I think everyone agrees that this is true, although calling it an "end-run" might be prejudicial. Whether he and Gyaltsab then proceeded to seize Rumtek by force is certainly something that the Shamarpa's side makes a great deal of; I'm not sure what the other side says about it. "In July of 2004 the Indian Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a group created by Gyaltsab Rinpoche and let stand an earlier decision of the Sikkim District Court and a subsequent confirmation by the High Court in New Delhi which determined that Gyaltsab's group had no legal claim to Rumtek and that the Karmapa Charitable Trust is legally entitled to manage Rumtek," is, as far as I know, completely true and it seems like an important fact to mention.

The statement about the law under which the Karmapa Charitable Trust (KCT) was established is from Buddha's Not Smiling. I have no other source.
It is impossible to know what the 16th Karmapa's motivation was in establishing the KCT. The Trust was created as a legal entity and interpreting motivation is not necessary to understanding these. In The Karmapa Papers, a collection of "documents in the case" published in 1992, a facsimile of the deed founding the KCT is reproduced and a translation provided. It clearly states that the seat of the Trust is in Rumtek and that the purpose of the foundation includes "the erecting and maintenance of religious buildings, temples, maths [?], monasteries, inns, educational institutions and hospitals." A plain reading of this must support the claim that the Trust was meant to administer the temple, monastery and shedra at Rumtek and that the Trust was to discharge this duty during the period between the death of the 16th Karmapa and the coming of age at 21 years of the 17th Karmapa.
I agree that "end run" might have been a bad choice of words. It's so succinct, though.
Thinking about it more, I think "end run" is probably okay. I mean, from his perspective, he was making an end run around a corrupt and/or unrepresentative and/or otherwise obstructive clique. Still an end run, though.
To me as an outside observer, I think the more important thing about KCT is not so much what K16 had in mind when he founded it, but what he had in mind for it closer to his death. I think—maybe I'm wrong—that both sides agree that KCT had not really been active for a long time prior to the Karmapa's death and that it had been basically forgotten for a few years afterward. It appears to me that this diminishes the significance of KCT with regard to spiritual matters or as a governing body for the Karma Kagyu sect. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In Tibet, great lamas had labrangs, vast bureaucratic administrations, that managed the lama's monasteries, lands, donations from patrons, etc. during the lama's life and held these estates in trust in the interregnum. My understanding is that the KCT acted as the 16th Karmapa's labrang, under his direction, during his life. I am not aware of anyone saying that it had become inactive or that it had been forgotten by the time of the 16th Karmapa's death. If this were so, who would have administered Karmapa's estate? Rebecca 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My impression comes mostly from Tomek Lehnert's book, in which I found the following statements: "However, few in Sikkim remembered the existence of the Trust" p. 29; "Now [1982], with the old secretary [Damchö Yongdu] gone and with financial crisis looming ... the succeeding administration [of Topgal Yulgyal] suddenly recalled the dormant Trust. Bringing the non-profit organization to life would relieve the lineage of the impending Indian taxes and safeguard it against another swindle." p. 30 This confirmed is by the website in a section titled "Specifics about the Karmapa Charitable Trust": "Topga Rinpoche admitted in 1996 that during the lifetime of the 16th Karmapa and for the immediate years after his death, the trust had remained inactive and widely forgotten. The Karmapa was the sole trustee. Therefore, there was no need to activate the trust. It was only after the death of Dhamchoe Youngdu, the old General Secretary, in 1983, with the financial crisis looming over Rumtek that the new administration had dug out the corresponding documents, and consequently, the trust's seven-member board, as per the deed of the trust, came to life." Since I don't think anyone would forget the labrang of an important lama, this leads me to doubt that KCT is identical to the Karmapa's labrang.
Another odd point about the Karmapa Charitable Trust, which I've never heard anyone mention before, is the make-up of its board. According to "Specifics about the Karmapa Charitable Trust", the KCT charter contained specific instructions on who was to be a trustee and how they would be replaced in case of death or resignation. The original trustees were appointed by name—apparently the same persons that were listed in 1961 became the trustees in 1982. Of these, four were laymen who were supposed to be replaced by their male heirs according primogeniture; the other three were monks who were to be replaced by election by "the members of the Karmapa sect of Tibetan Buddhism". (Which is ambiguous. Who are the members? Monks only, or lay followers, too? All monks, or only those with some level of seniority?). It's not clear that these rules of succession were actually followed in any instance, except for one trustee who was succeeded by a son who later resigned. These are the board members:
1. Rai Bahadur Tashi Dadul Densapa, deceased -> succeeded by his son Jigdral Tashi Densapa, resigned -> vacant
2. Ashok Chand Burman, resigned 1984 -> succeeded by the Shamarpa (elected by trustees)
3. Gyan Jyoti Kansakar (still a member ca. 2000)
4. Sherab Gyaltsen (still a member ca. 2000)
5. Damchö Yongdu (general secretary of Rumtek), deceased 1982 -> Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche (elected by trustees), deceased 1992 -> vacant
6. Topgal Yulgyal (later general secretary of Rumtek), deceased 1998 -> vacant
7. Gyonpu Namgyal, deceased ca. 1984 -> Tai Situpa (elected by trustees)
Thus, following the death of Topgal, the four trustees were Sherab Gyaltsen, Gyan Jyoti, Shamarpa, and Tai Situ, with three vacancies. However, Tai Situ's election to the board is questionable, since he was selected simply by a vote of the board itself, and it's questionable to assume that "members of the Karmapa sect" means the the Trustees of KCT. Shamarpa's membership, on the other hand, seems plainly incorrect: according to the charter, Ashok Burman should have been succeeded by a male heir, not by another board appointee. Currently, I think at least one of Gyan Jyoti and Sherab Gyaltsen has died, meaning that there might be only one person (possibly none) left who has a legitimate seat on the KCT board.
As with a lot of things in this case, the facts are a bit unclear. This page from Shamarpa's website says that there were eight trustees in the early 90s, and that Ashok Burman was still a trustee then. However, this report from the same site agrees that Burman resigned in 1984.
One could argue that (and I'm not saying that this is any way proven or presumable, just an argument that could be made) that since there were vacancies in the elective seats (either 3 vacancies or 2 vacancies + Tai Situpa), and since it is apparently the case that Urgyen Chileh Dorje's supporters are more numerous, that there should have been an election which would have put his faction in control of KCT, 3 votes 2 (assuming that the two vacant hereditery seats remained vacant or neutral, or else that at least one of them supported Urgyen Chileh Dorje). As I've said, the Tai Situpa side has never argued this to my knowledge, even though it would have been to their advantage to do so. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We might also want to include something about how—as far as I can tell—the Karmapa Charitable Trust is about to become irrelevant. Its bylaws state that the Karmapa becomes the sole trustee on his 21st birthday. Well, Thaye Dorje is already 21 and Urgyen Chiley Dorje will be later this year. Once that happens, one would imagine the control over KTC will become disputed just as the identity of Karmapa is disputed. That is, KTC will no longer be a separate third power. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While you're right that the KCT's charter seems to have ended with the coming of age of the 17th Karmapa, the outcome of the court case will still be relevant for a number of reasons. I agree, though, that mention should be made of this new wrinkle in the controversy.
Thanks, Nat! Rebecca 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche[edit]

Hi Billion. Because you added the view as stated by Chokyie Nyima Rinpoche, I added that Mingyur Dorje Rinpoche (his brother) is also the son of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. But we can delete my addition if it confueses the article, beacuse it is mentioned in his wiki article too. Kt66 10:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thrangu's two letters[edit]

The article reports Ven. Thrangu saying that he personally knows that K16 wrote two prediction letters. Then the article states as fact that many people had read at least on the letters and that 50 copies were made of it. Then it says that the document that was inside Tai Situ's amulet is yet a third letter. Is this correct and for real? As far as I know, there are only two prediction documents that were ever claimed to exist, and one of those was later admitted by all parties to have been a fake. Neither of the two books I read about this subject mentioned anything about two other letters. What gives? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I don't remember anything about two previous prediction letters, either from reading Mick Brown's The Dance of 17 Lives and Michele Martin's Music in the Sky. The only confirming reference I have to them from Thrangu's website, here, from an interview published in May 2000. It's the third prediction letter, obviously, that's in question. Which letter are you thinking of "was later admitted by all parties to have been a fake"? Was that the letter that the Situ Rinpoche and others alluded to as a temporizing device, for lack of having found the real letter yet? I suppose that thorny story needs to be told here, too. Sandover 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's the letter I meant; I should have said that it did not exist at all, rather than being fake. And right, that story should be told here. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Move info from Ole Nydahl page?[edit]

Hi all, I have been checking out the Ole Nydahl page and there's info there which I think is more relevant on the Karmpa Controversy page. They are regarding his views on the Dalai Lama in the controversy and another editor in turn put in a reply to Nydahl's views and these are more relevant here rather than on Nydahl's bio page. What do you all think?--Rico yogi 22:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thaye Dorje on recognition[edit]

The following was added to recognition section by an anon editor. I felt it should be merged in to the section on "claims by his supporters" or merged carefully with the current "Recognition of the Karmapa" section carefully balencing any different views from the two sides with sources. I do not agree that the section as it stands is POV, but this should be debated before such an edit.Billlion 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

View of Thaye Dorje's Supporters: They denote a central role in the process of recognition to the Sharmapas and base themselves upon an expertise of Prof. Geoffrey Samuel stützen (S16ff: Here, the whereabouts of the traditional process of reincarnation are shown. Prof. Samuel sources for the research are Douglas and White, the Black Hat Lama of Tibet, 1976: 31-110, dealing with the text "zla wa chu shel gyi phreng ba" and oral explanations of the 16th Karmapa ). This presentation clearly contradicts the one presented above.

Since the 14. century, the recognition of the Karmapa reincarnation seems to have been mainly under the authority of the Shamar Tulkus. In that way the 5. (2.Shamar), 6. (3.Shamar), 10. (Shamar 6) and 11. (Shamar 7) Karmapa-reincarnations where solely recognized by Shamar Tulkus. The 9.Karmapa was recognized by both, the 5.Shamar Tulku and the 4.Situ Tulku together and the 12. by a group that was asked to do so by the 8.Shamar Tulku. An exception is only the 8. Karmapa, who was recognized by the 3.Situ Tulku. The 7. Karmapa (recognized by the 1.Gyaltsab Tulku ) and the 13.Karmapa (by the 7.Gyaltsab Tulku ) are no real exceptions to undermine the authority of the Shamar Tulkus, because because the Shamar Tulkus of that time died almost around the same time than the respective Karmapa Tulkus and where hence unavailable. This situation changed only 1790 as the Lhasa Regime forbid the reincarnations of the Shamar Tulkus. From that time on, the Tulkus were recognized by various masters: 14. (by the 9.Situpa), the 15. (by the 9.Drukchen Rinpoche) and the 16. Karmapa (by the 11. Situ and the 2 Jamgon Kongtrul).

I think the earlier version of the text appears to be flawed. Geoffrey Samuel seems to be a neutral source (even though his research was presented as favourable evidence by Trinley Thaye Dorje's supporters in a court case, his tone and conclusions seem quite balanced and scholarly) and, in any event, he is simply summarising information found in a book written before the controversy began. Factually, the earlier version seems similar, but it appears to systematically downplay the role of the Shamarpa. Here are the discrepancies between the earlier version of this article and Samuel's research:

  1. It states that Tai Situ recognised the 14th Karmapa along with Gyaltsab, rather than alone
  2. It states that Tai Situ alone recognised the 16th Karmapa, rather than Jamgon Kongtrul and Tai Situ together
  3. It does not mention that the Shamarpa recognised the 5th and 11th Karmapas or sent the search party that recognised the 12th
  4. It says that Tai Situ alone recognised the 9th Karmapa, rather than Shamarpa and Tai Situ together
  5. It says that, "the other incarnations were self-declared or recognized by lamas outside the six main reincarnate lineages closely associated with the Karmapas", which does not agree with Samuel's research in some instances.

Samuel's research does seem to show that, between the birth of the second Shamarpa in 1339 and the banning of the lineage by the Lhasa government in the 1790s, only the 8th Karmapa was recognised by someone else when there was an adult Shamarpa available. In the time during the ban (during which there were only three Karmapas recognised), the Shamarpa no longer played this role, and Tai Situ was involved in two of three instances.

Without regard to any issues of how they are to be interpreted or explained, the facts seem more reliably described by the newer text (which sites a source, unlike the older version). We should work to combine the two versions, preserving the facts presented in the newer one.

I should also note, as an object of side research, that, going by the dates on Tai Situ, from the time of the birth of the second Tai Situ in 1450, the Tai Situ was always a minor at the time of the Karmapa's recognition, until the 13th in 1732. Somehow, this did not stop him from participating in two recognitions before that, including the single-handed recognition of the 8th Karmapa by the 3rd Tai Situ when the latter was only nine years old! Some of these dates might not be entirely reliable.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nat, you make some good points and the issue of the age of Tai Situ is very interesting (and as you say the reliability of the dates should be questioned as well). We must restrain ourselves from original research for the the article, unfortunately! Do you want to have a go at combining the two versions, I agree it should be done? Billlion 21:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll do it at some point.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Situation with this page 28th of March of 2007[edit]

28th of March of 2007 - 1:00 am GMT.

Facts: I think this article it is not neutral, and clearly shows preference to one of the Karmapa's candidats. It also doesn't mention that there was a third one of latin origin, among 2 or 3 more. Tai Situ Rinpoche was forbiden to enter India because he already was involved with the chinese government in the "accidental" and mysterious death of many lamas and Rinpoches who did not accept the Orgyen candidature to Karmapa, and Orgyen himself could not leave his monastery.

Now for history facts: it is not the first time that such thing happens in the Karma Kagyu Lineage, though it was not as long as this thread.

Tulkus facts: Reincarnations are not linear, as many westerner people might think, and sometimes there are many reincarnations of a relevant teacher or emanation, though they are not complete, and they must be together to work. And by destroying one another makes the picture that none had understood anything about the Buddha's Teachings, nor even the basic Abidhamma.

The reason why a Master or Emanation wants to divide him or herself nobody is sure of, but the original Master or Emanation, but it may be because he or she needs to develop his or her Mind, Heart and Mouth in a more specific way, and he or she may need two, three or more people to do all the job his or her has to do.

There are also cases when a master decides to transfer his or her consciousness instead of acquiring a new body, because he or she is in a hurry to do a particular task that keeps him or her tied to a quick return until he or she finishes the work he or she came back for.

In this case, and for the benefit of the Kagyu Lineage and the benefit of the union among Tibetan Buddhists traditions, I think both candidats are one, and should work together, and if this does not happen, it means that the Kagyu Lineage is not worth to continue in activity, because it shows how poor are the true buddhist Teachings. And I don't know who are other lineages to sign a certificate of being the H.H. the Karmapa reincarnation.

About myself, I was of bhutanese origin, and I do belong to the Drugkpa Lineage. And I trully feel very sad and dissapointed, because as Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche said, the Karma Kagyu is going to be divided in two, and an elephant will destroy it. And I am sure Karma Kagyu Lineage will be destroyed if both reincarnations cannot work together in brotherhood.

If both reincarnations agreed to share the title and burocracy soothes it and make it flexible to accept both tulkus, Karma Kagyu's activity will be fortunate and Tibetan Buddhism will stay a long time in the West, if not, Tibetan Buddhism of the Karma Kagyu will die, and all Lineages will blame it.

This article claims that Orgyen Thrinley is supported by the majority, but this support is based on the respect that every lama and Rinpoches of all Lineages have for H.H. the Dalai Lama and the gelugpas, which were the one's who recognized him as a Karmapa, violating all rules of all lineages. I do respect him as well, but this is not honest.

I guess you all are commiting a big mistake, with very bad consequences to buddhism in general, which will build a lot of bad karma to all involved, which shows the big ignorance on true buddhist teachings.

Please review the Talk page guidelines. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. If you have concrete suggestions for changes to the article based on verifiable information, your contributions are most welcome.Sylvain1972 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits, July 2007[edit]

I have just done a fairly extensive edit on this article. Since this is obviously a fairly contentious topic, I wanted to mention here that I have no personal connection to the topic at all (in fact, no prior knowledge of it whatsoever), so please be assured that my extensive edits performed today were solely for the purpose of correcting typos, grammar and punctuation, and for standardizing the way in which footnotes and references are indicated. I hope those of you working on this article find it to be improved. Maralia 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dawa Sangpo Dorjee[edit]

How should this article treat one Dawa Sangpo Dorjee, the Sherpa claimant to the position of 17th Karmapa? Generally, I think he should be discussed minimally (his existence is confirmed by a few Indian newspaper reports and a letter appearing on the Shamarpa's website). He is certainly a Karmapa claimaint, but he is not a very important part of the Karmapa controversy. Moreover, while it may very well be true, from a religious perspective, that Dawa Sangpo Dorjee is the true 17th Karmapa (we know for a fact that either the Shamarpa or the Tai Situ is wrong about the Karmapa's identity—perhaps they both are), but, from a secular perspective, there is basically nothing we can just a hierarch by except for his acceptance by other accepted leaders in his denomination. Dawa Sangpo Dorjee, at the current time, has none of this.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It calls for a passing mention at most, but referring to "three" claimants throughout the article is silly. Sylvain1972 13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talkcontribs)

Deletion debate![edit]

Looks like an attempt to move the page manually. If anyone wants to propos renaming the page this is the place to do it. Not a deletion debate after a badly executed attempt to change the name! Billlion (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Hopefully this nomination will be speedily closed. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed text: accepters[edit]

Recently, a number of names were added to the list of people who recognise one candidate or another as the current Karmapa. This is getting to be problematic, because no sources are provided for any of these names. I can't think of a fair way to exclude some but leave others in, so, for now, I have removed everyone listed as agreeing to the recognition. These names can and should be re-added with proper citations: Here is the removed text:

"[Regarding Ogyen Trinley Dorje:] Other prominent Kagyu lamas who accept the recognition of Ogyen Trinley Dorje include the Ninth Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, the Ninth Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche (a former Abbot of Rumtek Monastery), the Seventh Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche and his Nalandabodhi organization, the Seventh Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche (the youngest son of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche), the Third Tenga Rinpoche, the Venerable Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, the Venerable Bokar Rinpoche, the Third Bardor Tulku Rinpoche, the Venerable Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche (abbot of Karma Triyana Dharmachakra), H.E. Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and his organization, Shambhala International, the Venerable Drupon Rinpoche, the Venerable Akong Rinpoche and his Samye Ling Monastery and Lama Norlha Rinpoche, among others. Ogyen Trinley is also recognized by several reincarnate high lamas who are currently minors, including the Fourth Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche, the Eleventh Pawo Rinpoche, the Third Kalu Rinpoche, and the Twelfth Surmang Trungpa Rinpoche. All of these younger lamas were in turn recognized by Ogyen Trinley himself, or by Karma Kagyu lamas aligned with him."

"[Regarding Trinley Tayê Dorje:] Other lamas who accept his recognition are The 4th Jamgon Kongtrul Karma Migyur Drakpa Senge Trinley Kunkhyab Palzangpo, the Venerable Jigme Rinpoche (brother to Shamar Rinpoche and nephew to the 16th. Karmapa), the Very Venerable Shangpa Rinpoche, the Very Venerable Lopon Tsechu Rinpoche (who passed away in 2003), His Eminence Chogye Trichen Rinpoche, His Eminence Trungram Gyaltrul Rinpoche, H.E Lopon Tenzin Jigme Rinpoche, Ven. Nedo Kulha Rinpoche, Khenpo Chodrak Rinpoche (a former Abbot of Rumtek Monastery and nephew to the 16th. Karmapa), H.E. Chog Gyur Dechen Lingpa Rinpoche, Ngendo Rinpoche (Dorje Lopon of the Kagyu lineage), Khenchen Tashi Paljor Rinpoche, Maniwa Sherab Gyaltsen Rinpoche, Sabchu Rinpoche, Lama Gendün Rinpoche (the meditation master and the spiritual leader of the four Dhagpos), Sangsang Rinpoche, Trinle Tulku, H.E. Karma Chagme Rinpoche, Tulku Lodrö Rabpel, Drupseng Rinpoche, Lama Tönsang, and Trehor Lama Thubten, Ven. Tshurphu Lopon Rinpoche, Ven. Minawa Jampa Gyamtso Rinpoche, Ven. Tshurphu Khentrul Rinpoche, Ven. Tulku Tsheyang Rinpoche, Ven. Lowo Tulku Rinpoche and Ven. Tulku Tenzin Rinpoche. Lama Ole Nydahl and his Diamond Way organization are prominent supporters of Thaye Dorje in the West."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware both of the above lists of supporters are accurate. There is only one on Ogyen Trinley's side that I'm not sure of, and three on Thaye Dorje's side of which I'm uncertain. Unfortunately, I'm not really a citeable source, but I'll see what I can do to track down info. I can assure you without a doubt the H. E. Trungram Rinpoche, as well as Khenchen (Tashi Paljor) Rinpoche both are supporter's of Thaye Dorje, as Trungram Rinpoche is my root lama and Khenchen Rinpoche was recently made head abbot of monastic ordination for the Kagyu lineage by Thaye Dorje.

--Changchub (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that it is in my experience often quite difficult to determine the Kagyu lamas who are supporters of Thaye Dorje, as they seem to be much less in-your-face shall we say about the candidate they support. Personally I rather like the quiet approach from my lamas and consider it a virtue, however in this case, it does make nailing down support a bit difficult.--Changchub (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly they should only be included if a reliable source can be found. And I that narrows is down to those who have published something in writing and prevents the list from growing.Billlion (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of initiative to move/rename to 17th Karmapa recognitions[edit]

That there's two 17th Karmapas is something that's gone beyond initial controversy to what has now been an abiding outcome for 15 years and longer. It's become a settled fact of life in which a generation has grown up having personal recall of nothing otherwise. HH the 16th Karmapa died 27 years ago. Best practice is then to rename this "17th Karmapa recognitions". This is in just the same way that over time we have been able to accept the Partition of India as no longer a 'controversy' and rather a settled and abiding outcome that has proved its stability over a lengthy period such as to have achieved an aspect of permanence.Sacerdote (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right, perhaps a different title is now appropriate. Although I disagree - the whole affair remains controversial. At this point it looks as though we will henceforth have what are essentially a "Situ Karma Kagyu" and a "Shamar Karma Kagyu," reminiscent of the schism following Pema Karpo's competing reincarnations that resulted in a "Northern" and "Southern" Drukpa Kagyu. It's hard to see how was has been done can be undone, unless one side is totally marginalized. Sylvain1972 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting idea, but something I'd have to think about more. It is still controversial it seems to me. Is there enough of a body of scholarship now from neutral parties that concludes that the controversy is over and the two sides are resolutely split now? I haven't read the more recent books on the situation, but I'm also not sure to what degree any of the books are truly neutral. There is the outward appearance to me of controversy still while rumtek is in dispute and both claim the same title and legacy. But perhaps the latter will never be resolved. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There certainly are those with settled understandings of neutrality who are above framing the description of events as a 'controversy'. See above talkpage comment re H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche, who is an authoritative person maintaining equanimity.Sacerdote (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to renaming, although I think it is still a controversy, and I think people may well google for that. However the title 17th Karmapa recognitions does not sound right for an article title. To be adequately descriptive the title would have to be longer so that it is clear what it is about. How about "Controversy over the recognition of the 17th Karamaps" or "Dispute over recognition of the 17th Karmapa" Billlion (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to inform the circumstances in which dual recognitions of 17th Karmapas have occurred and persist, so to frame that as in some way a 'controversy' is unhelpful and descriptively inaccurate. That's solved by the simple initiative of renaming to 17th Karmapa recognitions.
Put in perspective, consider the circumstance of German reunification which occurred some years (October 3, 1990) after both the 17th Karmapas declared themselves. We know it was an issue of 'controversy' between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but after the better part of two decades it is WP:Undue Weight to completely define our retrospective survey of events as German reunification controversy. Call things for what they descriptively are without having to make the interpretative leap of insisting something is a 'controversy' about what's described. We let the reader decide such things.Sacerdote (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Your 2nd to last sentence makes no sense in the context. Titling this entry "Karmapa Controversy" is calling thing exactly what they are. Almost nobody on either side of the debate believes that they are both Karmapas. Hence there is a controversy; one that has gone on for quite a while yes, but if you're going to insist on comparing a religious matter like this to European history have you ever heard of the Hundred Year War? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about "letting the reader decide" it is about a neutral presentation of factual information. People's feelings and opinions are not supposed to provide weight.--Changchub (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's everything about letting the reader decide. You're putting a spin that something has the character of a controversy when high authorities such as H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche have moved beyond that and have guided the view of the sangha and the wider community to something above it. There's no 'war' for 100 hours let alone 100 years, otherwise someone would have suggested that as an appropriate alternative titling. Terming the description of recognitions as 'controversy' is destructive of neutrality in approach. Maybe not you, but the rest of us have moved on from it.Sacerdote (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not about me (other than my desire to have something reflected accurately rather than reflecting your minority opinion). There are much higher lamas than Beru Khyentse (at least according to the 16th Karmapa) who still advocate unequivocally that one or the other is the Karmapa. I am putting a spin on nothing, merely stating that there has been, is, and will continue to be a controversy until more high lamas are in agreement. I would suggest that you improve your English skills before attempting to participate in the English part of Wikipedia, as it should have been obvious to you that the Hundred Years' War was a reference to European history not to this controversy, and yes... there was actually a conflict that went on for a hundred years between France and England (although it's often divided into three periods of conflict. But I digress. You however, really need to stop forceably foisting what is your minority opinion on this issue.--Changchub (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at this site that does its best to drum up the aspect of sensation and 'controversy'. Even it defines the period associated with 'controversy' as '81-'96, which is a long time ago. It seems the 'controversy' is so unremarkable that there's been nothing worth reporting about it there since January 2007. That's right, the earth's gone all the way around the sun and more with no punctuation of the boring silence. Fisticuffs? Court cases? .. all pretty much confined to the past while both Karmapas do their own things in blissful ignorance of each other. Even as far back as September 2000 the 14th Dalai Lama could really only yawn about it:

"This matter has two aspects : the first being the practice of Buddhism, which is not brought into question by any of the centres whatsoever; the second concerning the recognition of a reincarnation, where each person has the freedom of their individual choice. Consequently it is the duty of the [French Association of Tibetan Buddhists] to accommodate all the centres and practitioners of Buddhism."

Do we need any higher authority than that to express that this subject matter now lacks the aspect of being 'controversial', but rather is quite uncontroversially a matter or personal choice and conscience to accord authenticity to neither, one of, or both of Thaye Dorje and Orgyen Trinley Dorje?Sacerdote (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As this has been listed at WP:RM I've added the normal header and discussion areas to this page. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Karmapa controversy17th Karmapa recognitions — Completing incomplete move proposal —Andrewa (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

The article is descriptive of the circumstances of dual concurrent recognitions of 17th Karmapas, not of those circumstance being termed 'controversy' in the minds of some who commentate on them.Sacerdote (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Weak oppose. Either name would do, but surely the above discussion is adequate evidence that it is controversial? And current events are making it more so by the day. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Make that full-hearted oppose. Discussion below reveals a political motive for the proposed rename. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support A greater part of material I see exploring this subject matter refers to a 'Karmapa matter' or 'Karmapa issue', not a 'Karmapa controversy'. For example when French Buddhists raised an administration concern with the Dalai Lama in Sept 2000 they used the terminology 'Karmapa matter'. There's also a notorious website called 'kamapa-issue'. There's -not- a controversy, there's a wide consensus of agreement among Buddhists supportive of the wisdom of the Dalai Lama's that the recognition of tulku incarnations is a matter for individual personal consciences. It's really only the titling of this article that is continuing to dignify the old dogma of there being a 'controversy'. Times have changed & thankfully Wikipedia has the capacity to reflect that.Sacerdote (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Remember this is English wikipedia, not French. There are websites with this as the title eg, (there BOTH SIDES) Billlion (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose WordNet [4] defines controversy as: noun: A contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument" | The subject is still contentious, the two sides still have strong disagreement, there have been violent arguments. High drama is currently avoided because most adherents of the two camps avoid talking to each other. That's a controversy. | Many practitioners who are not aligned with one of the Karma Kagyu schools remain unclear as to what it's all about, and what they should think about it all. (based on personal discussions.) | The argument that since it's been going on for years, it's no longer a controversy, doesn't make sense to me. Controversies can continue for a long time. Some scientific controversies remain unresolved for decades. | The fact that there are two administrations is not a good argument for there not being a controversy. If the two organizations respected each other & cooperated, then you could say there is no controversy. If they shared Rumtek & Tsurphu & the Black Crown, then you could say there is no controversy. But it would be very difficult for them to even have tea together. | People on both sides have firmly held positions, it doesn't seem controversial to them; it seems like the other side is totally deluded. That's a controversy. | There are actually two controversies: Is there one Karmapa or two? If there is only one, which one should we honor? Vajrayana Buddhists remain strongly divided. | My affiliation: I am a student of Chokyi Nyima, who was told by his father Tulku Urgyen not to take sides in the Karmapa dispute. Chokyi Nyima arranged the meeting between Ogyen Trinley Dorje & Shamar. On my site [5] groups from both sides can post their event listings. Jordan Rothstein (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Based on my readings on the subject, the situation seems to be quite controversial. Therefore, I think that "Karmapa controversy" is a reasonable title.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above still controversial, and the article is about the controversy. "17th Karmapa recognitions" does not even sound like the title of an encylodedia article to me. For one thing the article is about two separate recongitions of two possible Karmapas by disjoint sets of people. This title suggests more than one recognition of one Karmapa.Billlion (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if it was no longer controversial (and I think that it is still), there was a big controversy. A controversy need not be ongoing to be a controversy. For example, we still have an article called John Kerry military service controversy, despite the fact that there have not been recent developments. Sylvain1972 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That is also a former controversy. On examination of all the information, the US Navy declined to withdraw or amend any of its service awards to him. They've closed the case and nothing warrants reopening it.Sacerdote (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sylvain, you've given this guy more ideas. He's gone now and started editing the John Kerry military service controversy page! Suggest that Sacerdote might simply have problems with the idea of controversies existing in the world around him/her. Unfortunately however, that is the world we live in.
  • Oppose. Not really much to add that y'all haven't said quite accurately. Clearly still a controversy. I even know people from lineages other than Kagyu (couple Sakya friends) who get in heated discussions about who is the real Karmapa... clearly indicative of a controversy.--Changchub (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmapa controversy.
All told, it's a bit of a mess. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You said current events were making things -more- controversial. How so? We've had an abiding situation of dual recognitions and dual administrations for 15 years now and the two Karmapas at the centre of it couldn't care less about arguing with each other. They don't meet, they don't talk, they don't argue & even when asked they have very little to say about each other. They have more to say about those who think they're doing either of them a favour by playing up the partisanship angle. So fully expect another 15 years of non-eventuation. Time has stretched on & the drama has just bled out of it ... which is only sad for those with books to sell.Sacerdote (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The matter of the eventual succession of the Dalai Lama is the subject of a great deal of manouvring, and current events in Tibet heghten this interest. While the disputed succession of the Panchen Lama is of more relevance than this issue, there's an obvious connection. Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From the survey above: A greater part of material I see exploring this subject matter refers to a 'Karmapa matter' or 'Karmapa issue', not a 'Karmapa controversy'. For example when French Buddhists raised an administration concern with the Dalai Lama in Sept 2000 they used the terminology 'Karmapa matter'. This surely is the sort of diplomat-speak reserved for the most delicate negotiations. We should not adopt it. Call a spade a spade and a controversy a controversy. Andrewa (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a controversy. It -was-, long ago. There's now a confirmed distinction with separately fostered traditions that have flourished in the intervening decade, and years have passed since the Indian Supreme Court promulgated its final judgement re the Rumtek Charitable Trust. You can list hundreds of centres taking their primary inspiration from either Karmapa, and then there is the vast majority of people for whom being perceived to be on the 'team' of one Karmapa but not the other is the most tacky thing they can imagine. That includes me, even though I find it obvious that one is as possessed of charisma as the other is lacking it.
Have a close read of the article. It's not descriptive of a 'controversy', it's descriptive of dual 17th Karmapa recognitions (and a third person seeking to be recognised). Where's the controversy, for example, when it's descriptive of the 2007 rapproachment between Mipham Chokyi Lodro and Orgyen Trinley Dorje?Sacerdote (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was a controversy, then that's what the article describing it should be called. There's a great deal of interest in playing it down, and I sympathise with it. But introducing diplomat-speak into Wikipedia is not the way to do it. Andrewa (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a former controversy. Just like Forced busing and School desegregation. Its day in court, so to speak, has come and gone. The shoving and fighting at enthronement ceremonies and evictions of monks at Rumtek are not a present or even recent feature. The character of the article is to give descriptive background about 17th Karmapa recognitions, not to instruct the reader that they must see the duality of them and the way they've differentially been received by interest groups as a 'Karmapa controversy'. Karma Pakshi (2nd Karmapa) prophesied that "future Karmapas will manifest in two forms" and we have two 17th Karmapas for directing observances to. Neither of those counts as controversial, assuming you don't want to just make controversy where it doesn't absolutely have to be.Sacerdote (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the current topic of the article is the Karmapa controversy. The argument that it is now over is both dubious in its accuracy and in any case irrelevant. It seems agreed that there was such a controversy (shoving and fighting at enthronement ceremonies and evictions of monks at Rumtek), and there seems no doubt that this topic is worthy of an article. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Sacerdote you must be forgiven for being ignorant about Kagyu lineage history, but Karma Pakshi's prophecy has nothing to do with the matter going on right now as his direct successor Rangjung Dorje recognized Shamar Rinpoche as being the fulfillment of that prophecy, and they were commonly know in early Kagyu history as black hat and red hat Karmapas. --Changchub (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The existence of any statement by the 16th Karmapa that he utterly foreclosed the possibilty of himself incarnating in dual or additional forms is something I'm unaware of. Not only can we acknowledge dual forms having been recognised with the precedent of the 2nd Karmapa, dual forms are observable currently and even recognised as such by some authorities.Sacerdote (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The 16th Karmapa having never specified he would not incarnate in more than one form after that life does not therefore meant that he did, and simply because the one person you continually refer to (H.E. Beru Khyentse Rinpoche) accepted them both as Karmapas at one point in time (his current position is less definite) does not mean that there are dual forms. The vast majority of the Vajrayana community does not see it this way. I know of almost no one from any lineage who feels that they are both "Karmapa." People think either one or the other is Karmapa. So should you, if you truly feel one is lacking in charisma... seems pretty unlikely that Karmapa would not be possessed of quite a bit of charisma.--Changchub (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A summary[edit]

There are currently several related fields of activity regarding this article, currently called Karmapa controversy.

On 20 March, a fork of this article was created at 17th Karmapa recognitions with the edit summary The Karmapa lineage is the most ancient tulku lineage in Tibetan Buddhism, pre-dating the Dalai Lama lineage by more than...

Also on 20 March, a deletion request was opened by the user who had created the fork, for Karmapa controversy, with the reason Duplication. WP:POVFORK from 17th Karmapa recognitions. This nomination seems likely to fail.

On 22 March, with the AfD still open, a move request was opened, again by the same user, requesting this article be moved to 17th Karmapa recognitions. The request was incomplete, the article was listed at WP:RM but no discussion space created; I completed the request to allow discussion, see the Requested move section above. This nomination also seems likely to fail.

Currently, this same user is engaged in extensive editing to the article, including a minor edit war over the tone and contents of the article. The aim of this editing appears to be to water down the controversial aspects of the issue, to justify renaming it to... wait for it... 17th Karmapa recognitions.

It seems ironical to me that the self-appointed defender of such holy men should decide to try our patience so severely. But perhaps, our patience should not be limitless? Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think it should be limitless. There's a time and place for the manifestation of wrathful energy! As I see it, if it's only trying my own patience, then I grit my teeth and try to practice patience, but if it's interfering with multiple people's ability to share and provide information... well then I think it's not inappropriate at all to deal with a bit more harshly.--Changchub (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggest you deal with your absence of composure by condescending to provide edit summary rationales. Just for example that could start with your regular attempts to suppress the presence of the article's lead image.Sacerdote (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You must be referring to my regular attempts to prevent your undiscussed, mostly unwanted (was anybody here really unhappy with the way we were making and discussing minor edits on this article?), sweeping and opinion-based changes to the way this information was presented. In this context I did not feel it necessary to include a rational for reverting the page to a form in which most of us were previously happy working with. If with further discussion it seems that a majority of people involved in editing this and related articles approve of your changes, I will limit my reversions and "condescend" to provide edit summaries in the instances in which I do make changes.--Changchub (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and I see they have also reported you for allegedly breaking the 3RR... on the evidence presented there, you didn't actually break it as I'm sure you're aware, as the fourth edit was more than 24 hours after the first.

Perhaps it would be wise to raise unhelpful edits here after the first revert. I adhere loosely to a 1RR myself, but even with that restriction I can be some help. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some example of article called ¨controversies¨ Easter controversy, Investiture Controversy,Whitewater controversy, Global warming controversy, Japanese succession controversy, Vestments controversy. Many of them are historical and so are not controversial now. (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

English translation of prediction letter[edit]

It has come to my attention that the English translation of the prediction letter included in this article differs rather substantially from the original translation released. Does this bear mentioning here somewhere? And if so, how?--Changchub (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked it against the reference given and it's in exact correspondence. There's a couple of places in the article where citations have been requested and not yet supplied, however, and we must be mindful not to strip content that already has a reference.Sacerdote (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read more carefully, or do not respond at all. The "reference given" has nothing to do with what I was attempting to discuss.--Changchub (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the reference given does not accurately reflect the original either? Evidence either way? Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference given is not of the original translation into English of the prediction letter. It is the latter of two translations released by Tai Situpa and differs from the one initially released in several ways, not least of which is that it seems to contain more specificity as relates to Ogyen Trinley. I think this may have some relevance, but perhaps not enough to merit a mention on this page, so I thought I'd open it up for discussion. Changchub (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for stripping the references supplied for the year 2000 press statement of Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche re this subject matter and the prophecy of Karma Pakshi?[edit]

And also the suppression of the lead image presenting both 17th Karmapas. I can't fathom it from any edit summary or talkpage comment supplied.Sacerdote (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Please, both tell me about this. What's the image, and why should or shouldn't it be used? Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's copyright-cleared and showing verified images of both 17th Karmapas side-by-side in a seated position. Much like every mainpage featured article has had a lead image, we want to reach for the same high standards by having a suitable one here.Sacerdote (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a new image, never previously part of this article, which Sacerdote has been trying to forceably impose on the article in the attempt to promulgate his ideas about dual Karmapas. I personally have little problem with the image itself (however, I think people from both sides of the controversy will have a problem with the way it is titled as it makes it seem like they are both Karmapas) and most of the edit-undoings I was involved with reverted it because it accompanied a number of other far more controversial, undiscussed assertions on the part of Sacerdote.--Changchub (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an image from Rumtek monastery Sacerdote (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright clearance of Image:CoKarmapas.JPG looks extremely dubious to me. It appears to have been assembled from two other images from Wikimedia Commons. However, one of these images is licensed under CC-A, and the attribution requirement of this licence has not been met by the creator of the new image; The other appears to have been deleted, so its copyright status is unknown. Probably the image should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons on these grounds.

The title of the image also begs the question; The image description expands it as co-claimants. The question of whether they are rivals for the title or whether (as some claim) they can both have legitimate similtaneous claims was one of the key issues in the controversy, and seems still open.

Finally, it's potentially misleading. It could be taken to be a picture of a meeting between them, which of course it is not. If both these images are to be included, there's no good reason for them to be combined in this way, rather they should be included as separate images.

So all in all, an image to avoid. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be taken as a picture of a meeting between the two only if you're blind or extremely inattentive. It's captioning doesn't claim it, nor does the article (which affirms the opposite), and there's a sharp and easily distinguished dividing line with an obvious difference of image resolutions between the two halves. Plus there's a microphone stalk appearing magically at the dividing boundary and extending toward the mouth of the Karmapa on the right. It's no more portraying a meeting between the two than this image (used on the African-American template) portrays a meeting of famous African-Americans ...
It's not the image you're avoiding, it's the benefit of affording the reader a plain comparison of both 17th's at the most prominent place in the article.Oestrik (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree that this or any other image would mislead the blind. The question of my motives in criticising the image is of course irrelevant. I also notice you have presented no reason that we should use this image, rather than two copyright-compliant images such as those which are already used in the articles on the two claimants. There are many others available of these two famous and often-photographed men if you want variety. So even if the damage from using this image is slight (I really can't be bothered arguing that one way or another), why use it? It's a puzzle really. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this image should be avoided. I was not aware of the information you provide above, but as the image appeared suddenly during the process of Sacerdote's "17th Karmapa recognitions" kick, I assumed it was created and titled by him. Although the insertion of the phrase "co-claimants" also sounds suspciously like the activity an earlier editor was involved in who eventually got banned for being a sock puppet of DavidYork71 or something like that. Maybe Sacerdote is yet another. Worth checking in to at any rate. Changchub (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Andrewa (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to protect this page[edit]

My apologies to all who are involved in trying to legitimately present this issue to the public. In an attempt to protect this page from further manipulation by Sacerdote I requested that it be fully protected, however, I underestimated the speed and determination with which said User was trying to force their opinion upon the presentation of this article. Consequently, it is now fully protected in the form which Sacerdote has been trying to impose upon the page for the next 2 days. I sincerely apologize to all those seeking to reflect an accurate and NPOV on this issue for having underestimated the determination of the individual involved in this edit war.--Changchub (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the one with the answer to the question next above about stripping of references and image content. What is it?Sacerdote (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So, which is the preferred base version? If a rough consensus as to a better version of this page can be arrived at here, then I can update it. But we need that consensus first, and unfortunately that will probably take more than two days, so it's not a lot of help.
But let's get started anyway. What version do you propose, and why?
I wouldn't be too worried about the short-term damage of having the wrong version protected, if indeed that has happened. It's annoying, but these things do most often work out in the long term. But not always I confess, see swung note. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the "original" for lack of a better term for it. It appeared to be the result of a lot of good contributions dating back quite awhile. It has only been less than a week that one particular user has been making these changes apparently in order to justify and promulgate the idea that there are two Karmapas, rather than two young men believed by different parties to be the Karmapa--Changchub (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to ascertain as best we can what neutral, reliable sources are saying about this. I don't get the sense that they're saying yet that the split is resolved and the two sides have agreed to split the lineage and that there will be two recognized incarnations. Perhaps i've missed some trend in commentary about it, but I haven't seen anything like that quite yet. Perhaps it will take many years still for this to flush out? I don't see the rush about it particularly either, if things really do settle into a split lineage situation then we'll be starting articles that detail the split of the kagyu lineage and how that has settled out. But even then there will need to be an article that details the many years of controversy. So for me, I'd prefer not to change this article to say that the split is finalized and resolved and there are two recognized karmapa's now. I don't see the lineage resolved in that way yet. We'll likely need some real patience too. - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Owlmonkey has, as usual, put things much better than I ever could have. Until we start seeing things from higher sources talking about an irrevocable split it should continue to be perceived as a controversy within the Karma Kagyu lineage, and not a situation of splittage or dual-recognition. - Changchub (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of being blunt, I don't think you are addressing the issues at all.
I prefer the "original" for lack of a better term for it. There's no such lack; A far, far better name would be a URL such as this one, then we'll know exactly what you mean. So just to repeat, which version and why? Which version specifically, and what is there specifically that makes this version the preferred one?
There appear to be several viewpoints, and one of the issues is whether the split is finalised, and another is whether there even is split... Yes, some say this is obvious but even that is not universally recognised. The ideal of NPOV is that the article takes none of these viewpoints however popular or logical they may appear to ourselves as Wikipedia contributors. What we must strive to do is to report and source all those significant enough to be encyclopedic (including of course any with which we may happen to agree), and report them accurately and dispassionately. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sacerdote has been blocked indefinitely and the page protection reduced to semi-protection, so you should be able to edit the page without too much trouble. But please bear the above comments in mind! Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

17th Karpama[edit]

17th Karmapa doesn't exist. Shouldn't this exist as a redirect to this page? (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably should... although there's no 2nd Karmapa or 3rd Karmapa redirect either, at least not yet. There is 16th Karmapa. I didn't check them all. I think they're a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We might consider moving the articles to those titles—I think that's the most common way of referring to those individuals. I will effect redirects.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done the 17th... I see at least some of the others have appeared as well. Andrewa (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldnt find the reference to the relevant policy. But I think this is wrong. I think the correct article should follow the convention of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, 13th Dalai Lama etc however I could be wrong. I noticed Pope Benedict XVI, but that does have a name in. Billlion (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is no established policy which is relevant. The Dalai Lamas have the pattern you mention, but the Panchen Lamas are titled only by name. I think the case of the popes is different, since they are often referred to by name (at least if more than one pope is mentioned), whereas, in my experience, the Dalai Lamas are almost always referred simply as "the Sixth DL", "the 13th DL", etc. I'm not sure which is more common for Karmapas—perhaps the first few of them are commonly called by name, but the others by number.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence the controversy is not yet over[edit]

I just had a look at which is the page headed 17th Karmapa on the Karma Triyana Dharmachackra monastery website. It describes one of the candidates and doesn't even mention that there's another... surprise, surprise. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, to them there is no controversy. Why is there one to you? .. is it because some others have found their resolution to what was initially a controversy by committing to Thaye Dorje, or both together, or neither, at some time since the 16th Karmapa died in 1981 and a prediction letter surfaced several years later.Oestrik (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The District Court case in Gangtok[edit]

Does anybody have any information about the outcome(s) of it? The Indian Supreme Court (in 2004) said that any remaining questions about Rumtek Monastery go back to the District Judge there to be sorted out between the Charitable Trust in charge of it and the Government of Sikkim. So what was decided and what was sorted out? I know one thing that happened was that an official of the Reserve Bank of India was appointed to conduct the inventory of property at the monastery. Did that happen in an orderly fashion? Was a result that they confirmed the location of the black Karmapa crown that seems to have gone missing since 1981.Oestrik (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No whitewash[edit]

I'm a little disgusted to see the most recent attempted whitewash, which seems to want to deny that anything was ever controversial. Oestrik, you know as well as I do that we could have a hundred cites to back up the fact that this whole affair has been controversial. And Billion, that is a perfectly legitimate quote that you deleted, cleared cited and sourced. Sylvain1972 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has a reference now. It is certainly not "whitewash" to delete unsourced claims, especially where they claim that there is a source but it has not been specified. That is my point. Please have a look at WP:V, and please understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and we are aiming for verifiability from reliable sources (and actually that may be way short of truth!).Billlion (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It had the same reference the first time too, as the history confirms. However, the whitewash I was referring to was Oestrik's attempt to pretend there is no controversy and the whole thing was simply a bit "puzzling" at first until everyone happily accommodated the situation. That is patent nonsense. Sylvain1972 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"As one academic expert in the field testified in court, while the recognition of Urgyen Trinley "appears to have been accepted by a majority of Karma Kagyu monasteries and lamas, there remains a substantial minority of monasteries and lamas who have not accepted Urgyen Trinley as Karmapa." NO REFERENCE. As you say, see history, [6]. You cant say "As one academic expert in the field testified" without following it with a citation.Billlion (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the same Samuel citation is clearly at the end of the quote, just as it is now. The citation follows immediately after the quote. It is RIGHT THERE in the history. Sylvain1972 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oestrik (being yet another Sacerdote sockpuppet) does not apparently know that there is still a controversy, or rather is still determined to force his opinion on the readers of Wikipedia. Changchub (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you are right. I misread it and thought the ref was at the end of another sentence.Billlion (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, even on banned users and alleged socks. If this really is a sock, just put in a checkuser and get it blocked. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are those who at some point in the last 15 years have settled upon Thaye Dorje only. They don't sense controversy - they've made up their minds. Likewise others have settled on Orgyen Trinley Dorje or on dual recognitions - they've gone beyond the controversy of the early-to-mid 1990s and made up their minds as well. Then there's the great majority of people for whom these tales of reincarnation are laughable. Their minds were always made up. That leaves the few who still can't decide and they're the one's hung up on feeling there's residual controversy. Cover all five (viewpoint groups) proportionately, with due attention to reliable sourcing, and that gives us the way through to a comprehensiveness reflecting credit on all concerned. Is that unreasonable?Oestrik (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that explains why it IS a controversy. There are at least two substantial groups of people holding opposing views on the matter. Within those groups they might think there is no controversy, they just think they are right. But from the outside we see that the matter is controversial. This is fairly typical of a controversy! Billlion (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit is certainly not reasonable in my view. It promotes your POV, which is well expressed above but doesn't belong in the article, by rough but clear consensus here.
In view of that, IMO it comes within the category of vandalism for the purposes of the 3RR. You have been warned, just in case you were hoping to appeal to it as Sacerdote once did (unsuccessfully I might say).
Perhaps we need to semi-protect the page again? Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

14th Sharmapa "concurred that Ugyen Trinley Dorje be a Karmapa and the seat holder of Tsurphu monastery in Tibet" in June 1992[edit]

If one observes the translation authorized by Shamar himself rather than the dubious translation by a follower of Tai Situpa's (I'm assuming the man has a better idea of what he intended to say than somebody else), it can in no way be construed as anything other than a grudging acceptance of what was then the current state of affairs, and not the enthusiastic endorsement of Ogyen Trinley that you have been trying to make of it. History clearly show that Shamar Rinpoche had doubts all along and was never a supporter of Ogyen Trinley as the Karmapa. His acceptance that Ogyen Trinley stay in Tsurphu, and play the role of Karmapa there, is also not grounds to say that "Shamar has recognized two people as Karmapas" as you are also trying to claim. Changchub (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If he didn't concur with his three counterparts and the Dalai Lama about Ogyen Trinley being recognised as a Karmapa he would write a letter expressing nonconcurrence rather than the opposite. He's serially recognised two people as Karmapas, which is not a rumour, it's documented from his own hand that:
* he dropped his doubts about the letter being "a sacred testament",
* he concurred with the decision of the Dalai Lama about its interpretation.ConcurredInWriting (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above having been said, I do rather think that Shamar's letter does bear mention/inclusion in this Karmapa controversy page somewhere (however, I think it should not be accompanied by the host of other edits attempting to portray the two candidates as co-Karmapas). Changchub (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Changchub on both points. Shamarpa was under a lot of pressure—including from one of his main teachers, apparently—to go along with the recognition, so he at one point grudgingly acquiesced to it ... and then changed his mind almost immediately ... two weeks later, he was urging the Dalai Lama not to give Ogyen Trinely Dorje his final imprimatur.
I would further editorialise that, if you pay attention to what Shamarpa says, I believe you can gather that his core objection was not so much to Ogyen Trinely Dorje personally but to the manner in which he was recognised, and the fact that he was left in Chinese-controlled Tibet rather than being smuggled out like Trinley Thaye Dorje later was. The fact that Shamarpa at one point grudgingly went along with Ogyen Trinley as an individual does nothing to contradict Shamarpa continuing objections to the circumstances of the recognition.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The man missed out on a starring role in the recognition of Orgyen Trinley Dorje, but joined in eventually. Then he backflipped it for the sake of another person (Thaye Dorje) he already had investigated where he could have the starring role. Does the June 1992 letter referenced above include any kind of reservation along the lines "I've known about somebody else since 1988 and I'm inclined to think that it could be them, so I'm not willing to agree with the Dalai Lama yet"? No. Try "I have put aside doubts about the letter and I am in agreement with the Dalai Lama".ConcurredInWriting (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely you have noticed that the two translations don't convey the same meaning. You are obviously operating under the assumption that the first translation is the only one that is accurate. Surely someone working in the legal industry should understand the tentativeness of a claim based on a translation by people who stood to gain from that translation? Changchub (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I too agree with the overall points. However, it would be interesting to see how a disinterested party would translate the letter. Translations are not entirely discretionary, after all. One example - is an equivalent of the subclause "the sacred testament" in the Tibetan letter or not? It is entirely ommitted in the second translation. Either it was something Michelle Martin concocted wholecloth, or there was something reasonably equivalent in the Tibetan which Anne Ekselius omitted entirely, and whatever the case may be reflects somewhat on the veracity of the respective translations. Sylvain1972 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"However, it would be interesting to see how a disinterested party would translate the letter." Definitely! There is a Nyingma tulku at a nearby monastery who has been working hard on improving his English. Perhaps in a few months when he begins teaching a colloquial Tibetan class (which I hope to attend), I might try to impose upon him to render a translation. I think it would also be interesting to have a Tibetan translate it into English rather than the two aforementioned translations which were done by native English speakers. Changchub (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the article still fails to mention that the 14th Shamarpa/Miphan Lodri put aside doubts about the letter and recorded his concurrence with the Dalai Lama's identification of Orgyen Trinley Dorje as 17th Karmapa in 1992. Have the integrity to bring it to light instead of locking it out because, would there even -BE- a 'controversy' without the changeability of that man's opinions? Why does it also negliect to disclose that Shamarpa, Tai Situpa, Jamgon Kongtrul, and Gyaltsab Rinpoche all agreed in the mid-80s to deceive people that there was a prediction letter in a box that would be revealed after the followership had made sufficient devotional offerings. They accepted the offerings and then revealed that there never had been any letter. That's a fact that warrants inclusion. I'll look for a reference.ConcurredInWriting (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Our Australian friend does make a good point here at last. The fact that the four highest ranking Rinpoches behind the Karmapa, all chose to deceive their followers worldwide (even to the point of telling them they needed to do a huge number of mantras before the letter would be understood or something) might be worth mentioning as well. This is the "fake" (as in so fake it was non-existent) prediction letter that has been alluded to in this discussion previously. Changchub (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you so arrogant that you can't accept that the 14th Sharmarpa's written concurrence with the Dalai Lama's identification of Orgyen Trinley Dorje as a Karmapa in 1992 is a 'good point' that warrants coverage in this article and the biographical articles of the persons concerned? See - how you stripped it out from '14th Shamarpa',how you stripped it out from 'Ogyen Trinley Dorje',how you stripped it out from 'Thaye Dorje', and how you've serially blanked it out from being exposed at line 52/53 of this article..[7],plus identical attempt by Sylvain1972.
(talk) 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[RFC request by banned user removed] Khoikhoi 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ConcurredInWriting (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you observe above I have mentioned that this letter does bear mention in this Wikipedia entry. However, your interpretation of it, which has been accompanied by your persistent attempts to portray your idea that there are two Karmapas (one without charisma, lol) does not bear mention in this article. The "stripping" that you refer to has not been some sort of targeted attack to suppress this information (else why would I be openly discussing it here?), but rather has been mostly the removal of dubious information regarding there being two Karmapas, rather than two claimants to the same. Changchub (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Next time DavidYork or one of his sockpuppets makes a comment here, let's not respond to it. See WP:NOFEEDING. BTW, this talk page should probably be archived. Khoikhoi 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Both good suggestions.
The problem with invoking WP:NOFEEDING (which is currently flagged as an essay not a guideline, something that may not be obvious as the redirect jumps to a section) is that it's not always obvious at first that these are socks. This is particularly a problem when an anon edits this talk page (or the article if it's unprotected at the time); It may even be obvious to old hands what is going on, but as WP:NOFEEDING observes, many seasoned veterans of online communities consider this advice useless, because in a community of any size, someone will react to the troll's posts.
So good advice, but I wouldn't criticise anyone who violates it. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

new External link request[edit]


In External Links > Statements, interviews, documentaries, background material

please add under

the following

1) I'm not sure that that website has any new information that isn't readily available elsewhere; 2) I'm not sure how appropriate it is to include a source that is devoted to arguing that there is no controversy, since this article is about the controversy.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the editsemiprotected tag as adding the links is not non-controversial, needs consensus. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-neutral Reference?[edit]

The link is referenced under point 16 'Indian Supreme Court decision on Rumtek' but in fact this is a selfpublished information of an heavily involved party (WP:SPS) and the article is no WP:RS, hence, either please remove this reference or make it neutral NPOV like "Indian Supreme Court decision on Rumtek according to supporters of Thaye Dorje". I think, the reader is mislead by claiming 'Indian Supreme Court decision on Rumtek' and linking to a WP:SPS without any approval of a WP:RS. Thanks, -- (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have a hard time sourcing anything in this article if we remove all biased sources. This particular statement has two citations, one from each side. Can't we retain both of them and treat that as a neutral citation for whatever they agree on?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I accept. BTW, when I remember correctly in the past the article included a list of those Kagyue Lamas who support which candidate, I wonder why this has been removed? I like to suggest to include it again. see
The far majority of eminent Kaguye masters seem clearly to support the recognition of Trinley Orgyen Dorje while only very few and often less eminent Kaguye masters support Thaye Dorje. I think the reader should know this, shouldn't he? Any idea why it has been removed? However to make it easy we can just quote Prof. Samuel as a WP:RS with his paragraph 47:
The arguments of the defendants in this case rest on the final and conclusive nature of the Dalai Lama's recognition of Urgyen Trinley as 17th Karmapa. In the light of the above material, it would seem that the Dalai Lama's recognition cannot be regarded as conclusive or final. While it appears to have been accepted by a majority of Karma Kagyu monasteries and lamas, there remains a substantial minority of monasteries and lamas who have not accepted Urgyen Trinley as Karmapa. In particular, these include the Shamar Rinpoche, who historically has been the person most directly involved in the process of recognition. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs contention that the identity of the 17th Karmapa has not as yet been finally decided appears to me to be sustainable. see
What do you think?, -- (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It was removed because there were very few if any sources provided for the statements made. Also, the most readers are in a very poor position to judge based on a list the relative importance of the different lamas who have recognised the two candidates. I would definitely support including something referencing Samuel's statement above, though.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

4 schools of Tibetan Buddhism[edit]

The introduction states: The lineage is an important one as the Karmapa is traditionally the head of the Karma Kagyu school, one of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism. IMHO, "Kagyu" is one of the four main schools, not "Karma Kagyu", which is a sub-school of Kagyu, see Tibetan Buddhism#Schools and the introduction of Karmapa. So I think that sentence should be changed. BNutzer (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I think that casual observers often confuse Kagyü generally with "Karma Kagyü" specifically. Add to this confusion the fact that the Karma Kagyü is (recently, at least) seen as the most prominent branch of Kagyü, and its leader is perforce the most prominent Kagyü lama. Add then the fact that "leadership" of a sect of Tibetan Buddhism is typically a quite vague and circumstantial position, so the difference between the Karmapa being "leader" of Karma Kagyü vs. "most prestigious lama" of Kagyü as a whole starts to seem like a bit of an academic distinction—nevertheless, I do think we should continue to make this distinction. Finally, add the fact that the Tibetan exiles under the leadership of the Dalai Lama made a move to create a position of "leader" for each of the major branches of Tibetan Buddhism, which had not previously existed in Kagyü or Nyingma, and this seems to have been more or less accepted. Thus, the Karmapa really is the formal head of Kagyü; however, he is not traditionally its head, as this is a recent development.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the part , one of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism. BNutzer (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Karmapa ControversyKarmapa controversy — Usually I would just do a move like this but this article was once named Karmapa controversy and it was changed to Karmapa Controversy, so I wonder whether changing it back might be controversial. I don't believe it is a proper name so Controversy should not be capitalised, per WP:LOWERCASE. Nurg (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: The sources in this article use "Karmapa controversy" in lower case. Quigley (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support:It is not a proper name so lower case c Billlion (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Īf the Urgen Thinley Dorjee is the real Karmapa Then who is the Kaling Tulku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This text is removed: "In 2003, Luding Kechen Rinpoche (a Sakya lama) decided to pass the transmission of large number of Kagyu tantras to Thaye Dorje instead of the Orgyen Trinley Dorje.[24]". Reasons: In the reference it is not stated that this Sakya lama transmited the linage to Thaye Dorje instead of Orgyen Trinley Dorje. Thaye Dorje just asked for this transmission and received it (according to the cited ref). Moreover, each lama, especially young rinpoches, including also Orgyen Trinley Dorje receive every year many high teachings and transmissions. So what's the point to post here this particular one? Volovsky (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that things are just quite all right. The tibetan budism lost one Lama, in the person of the missing Panchen Lama. Now they are two Karmapas and it is one way of balancing the situation. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

User:VictoriaGrayson tagged the article with Original Research. Could you please comment on which parts of the article you have in mind? As for Primary sources I don't see how this can be avoided. There are very few neutral sources of secondary analysis, most people knowledgeable and publishing on the subject take a firm view on one side or other of the conflict. Thanks Billlion (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

March 30 2015 changes[edit]

The additions to the page made on March 30 2015 were un-sourced opinions about the ability of enlightened beings to contain their mindstreams. I removed as they don't follow wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. These were anonymous changes but please in future avoid placing personal opinions on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekinna1 (talkcontribs) 17:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again: Prophecies.[edit]

I will remove the interpretation of A Song on the website. Reason: Not even the followers of Ogyen Trinle - as Thrangu Rp on the official website of Ogyen Trinle, doubts that the vajra song predicts the 16th Karmapa's flight, not the 17th's: Footnote annotations by Ven. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche [4] Here the Karmapa is clearly predicting the future flight of the Tibetans to India. see:

another follower of Ogyen Trinle, lama Puntsok:

"The metaphor in The Song, “the vulture soars into the expanse of the sky,” points to the fact that Situ Pema Wangchuk would die soon. His Holiness furthermore prophesied that he and his people - all monks, nuns, and lay practitioners – would be robbed of their freedom in Tibet, would have to leave their homeland and flee the only possible way, which would be to East India and Sikkim. The prophecy came true. Tibet was robbed of its independence in 1959 and His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, His Holiness the Karmapa, and many, many Tibetan Lamas were forced to flee from their own country. They were generously offered asylum in India as well as in the adjoining Himalayan Kingdoms."

About the creative way kagyuoffice deals with prophecies: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshe108 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Shamar Rinpoche is dead and Thaye Dorje is married and no longer a monk[edit]

He was the main supporter of the minority candidate. Should be noted. Game over on this 'controversy' — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karmapa controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karmapa controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karmapa controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)