Talk:Ogyen Trinley Dorje

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page move?[edit]

I'm thinking we should move this page to Ogyen Trinley Dorje, because that is the spelling used on his official site ([1]) and it gets more ghits than "Urgyen Trinley Dorje", even when Wikipedia-related hits are counted. Actually, Wikipedia had been using the former spelling until I changed it about three years ago, on the grounds that the latter was more common. Maybe it was then, but it doesn't seem to be that way anymore.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, it should be moved. The preference does seem to have shifted over the last few years, although seems to use both.Sylvain1972 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have effected the change. By the way, I wanted to point out that (unless I am quite mistaken) the spelling issue here, unlike most that come up with Tibetan names, actually begins in the original Tibetan: both O-rgyan and U-rgyan seem to be acceptable Tibetan spellings of the same name (inclusion or exclusion of the "r" is a different matter).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who supports[edit]

User Changchub (talk · contribs) has removed a few supporting lamas, and made some interesting points that are probably worth discussing here. If either karmapa identifies a reincarnation, and that reincarnation supports that karmapa, how do we refer here to that being support? It's as if one recognition is the correct one but we can't make any such claims. It also assumes a solidified view of there being one true reincarnation, which is perhaps a different issue. But what to do here? Also, we have the question of support coming in gradients. For example, the web site seems to imply that they are siding with Ogyen Trinley Dorje, because of their news items such as this, this, and others. None are official statements of taking sides, per se, but the language seems to me to declare that they have. Perhaps another issue here is really the idea of "support" in the English language? Here is a proposal:

  • We specify for young lamas if two exist each identified by a faction, and include their specific names if known, but otherwise list them as identified by the respective karmapa. That adds value to the encyclopedia so people know there is a multiplicity currently
  • For young lamas who have not made official statements themselves, ie. they were recognized by Tai Situ but are still young, we omit them or instead list them as lineages currently "connected with" that faction but not as a "supporter". It is useful information for the encyclopedia to depict how the fraction of the kagyu lineage has divided up the various tulku's, monasteries, lineages, etc. and where each faction has identified a tulku, etc.
  • Perhaps reword the list of lamas as not particularly "supporting" one karmapa over another karmapa, since that sounds like some sort of cheerleading. How about just "connected to" or "are within the faction lead by" or "are within the kagyu hierarchy sided with"?

Thoughts? I would really appreciate all of your input, also as it applies to articles about each karmapa not just this article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just expand the section, explain these considerations and substitute "aligned with" for support. Sylvain1972 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talkcontribs)
Well, I took the comparable sections out of the article on Karmapa controversy, as I explained here. The main problem here is that none of the people listed as supporters listed are cited. In the absence of evidence, some of these statements might not really be true, and others might be partly misleading—for instance, a given lama might have a more nuanced position that gets lumped in as "support". The other problem, which is harder to deal with, is that no evidence is given for the relevance of support by a particular person. How important is that person? I don't know how to measure that. Granted, this is probably more of a problem for the Thaye Trinley Dorje article. I originally took note of the problem on Karmapa controversy when an editor added a bunch of names of people I've never heard of as supporters of TTD. Now, the fact that I've never heard of them says very little about whether they were relevant additions, but, on the other hand, no evidence was given in favour of this. So, suspicions arose in my mind that the list might be deliberately bulked up to give some sort of misleading impression.
In any event, a good start to dealing with these complexities would be to follow Sylvain's suggestions and expand the section, noting the details rather than trying to fit things into a list or a yes/no format.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true that a lot of nuance is involved. As far as how relevant particular lamas are, there is some evidence for that, because the Karma Kagyu lineage is so hierarchal it is spelled out in places. There is this list: on a Sharmapa affiliated site, and this descending-order one on a Orgyen Trinley Dorje site: Sylvain1972 17:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are problems with both these lists. The list on Shamarpa's website, although made by the 16th Karmapa, was made shortly after leaving Tibet and only includes Kagyu Lamas who had escaped at that point in time. High Lamas remaining in Tibet were not on the list, although the reincarnations of some of them have been found since then, some even by the 16th Karmapa... albeit after he made the list. One example would be His Eminence the 4th Trungram Gyaltrul Rinpoche, a very high lama and a close personal student of the 16th Karmapa and Dilgo Khyentse... where does he fit now? The problem with the list on Ogyen Trinley's website is that it is so ridiculously biased it leaves Shamar off completely and has all sorts of non-Kagyu or semi-Kagyu teachers, questionable reincarnations (11th Trungpa? The 10th said he was not reincarnating!), etc... So really Sylvain, these do not provide a whole lot of evidence for how relevant a lama's support is, especially the further down one gets in the hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchub (talkcontribs) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The lists don't have to be definite to be useful. I did not suggest that anyone be excluded because they are not on the 16th's list. The 10th Trungpa said different things at different times, but in particular he said that tulkus at his level were place-specific (Surmang in his case) and with Surmang in ruins it would not make sense for him to come back in that capacity. Now, however, Surmang has been reestablished. In any case, the lamas listed in the article (none of whom are "questionable") are all on the 16th's list and I don't see how their alignment with Orgyen Trinley would not be relevant to the article. Sylvain1972 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Within the context Nat was talking about, yes, they would have to be more definite to be useful. Not only are there plenty of high Kagyu lamas missing from the 16th Karmapa's list due to having remained in Tibet, but ranking for their reincarnations has never been established since then. This is obviously more applicable to the Karmapa controversy article than this one, however, you are not correct that all the lama's listed in this article are on the 16th Karmapa's list. Sakyong Mipham is considered a reincarnation of Mipham the great (Nyingma), so he's obviously not on the list. I don't see Lama Norlha, Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche, Bokar Rinpoche, or Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso on the 16th Karmapa's list either, correct me if I missed something. And as far as the 12th Trungpa goes, I do consider him a very questionable reincarnation. The 11th (not 10th as I said above) was overheard to say on numerous occasions that he wasn't coming back as a lama, sometimes claiming he would come back as a Japanese laborer, but that may have just been a joke. Just because Surmang was in ruins would be no reason for him to claim his line was ending since there were a host of lamas in exile who would have undoubtedly been willing to identify him. Furthermore, it seems that a logical person would be likely to find a number of tulkus identified by Tai Situ as questionable since the man is rather like a tulku vending machine, cranking out as many as 160 in a three month time period while in Tibet. Also there are cases like Situ's recognition of Gyathon Tulku (who he himself as well as the 16th Karmapa, were very clear was not coming back) less than two years after the 16th Karmapas death. Unless one is willing to claim the 16th Karmapa didn't know what he was talking about, I'd say that makes many Situ recognitions highly questionable within the context of the Kagyu hierarchy. As far as claiming support for either candidate goes, it's probably questionable to include anybody born after the 16th Karmapa died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchub (talkcontribs) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant definitive, not definite. The 16th's list need not be all-encompassing to be useful. If a tulku line appears on the 16th's list, it is clearly important. Most people would agree that a "logical" person would find the whole tulku phenomenon dubious, but within the Tibetan framework Tai Situ Rinpoche is unquestionably empowered to recognize as many tulkus as he wants to, there is no monthly quota. You are correct that not all of the lamas on the list might be considered "high" in the heirarchy but it is certainly possible to establish them as prominent and therefore relevant to the article. For instance Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is a Nyingma tulku, it's true, but he was empowered as a Karma Kagyu lineage holder by his father and heads one of largest sanghas practing the Karma Kagyu lineage in the west. In cases where someone was born after the 16th died, I suggested that we simply indicate the circumstances that would align them with one faction or the other, such as recognition by Tai Situ or whatever. Sylvain1972 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Karmapa controversy article turned into an unworkable laundry list. But the text in this article does not seem to be a problem because all of the lamas are either verifiably high in traditional rank or verifiably prominent.Sylvain1972 16:43, 12 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]

Travel to America[edit]

OTD just completed his visit to the U.S. on 2 June 08. There is information at and . Here is a mainstream news article about the Seattle events: .

It seems some mention of this trip is appropriate, but given the whole 17thK controversy I'm a bit wary to just jump in and edit this page. Suggestions as to what level of detail is good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC interview[edit]

2009-3 --刻意(Kèyì) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Business Standards interview[edit]

2009-May Karmapa freedom and education restricted by Indian government

'Ogyen Trinley Dorje hopes to get a university education, but will the government allow it? Anand Sankar wonders.

Nine years after his flight to India, the Karmapa lives under tight security and access to him is watched closely by the Indian government, which has granted him political asylum. No one is allowed to photograph him, or record an interview electronically, on orders from the home ministry. But conditions have been relaxed to allow him to travel to monasteries in India, and he made a maiden visit to the US last year.'

Changing the location of birth from: Tibet to Tibet Autonomous Region, PR[edit]

Regardless of what you stance is on Tibetan independence, it is a FACT that ever since the 1950's the region known is Tibet is governed by the Chinese government, with the regional name of Tibet Autonomous Region, PRC. The individual of this article is born in that region. Hence, I have changed the link from the ethno-cultural article Tibet to the administrative region of TAR, PRC. Children of the dragon (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Spy rumours[edit]

The following was recently added to the article:

many in the exile community suspect that he was sent as a spy for the People's Republic of China,[1] especially because of his immediate moves to ingratiate himself to the 14th Dalai Lama and his moves to gain leadership roles among Tibetan youth.[2]

There are serious "undue weight" issues here. Obviously, somebody believes some of these claims to be true, but it's very hard to say what the extent of the rumours is. It could be that a significant minority believes these allegations, or it could be that only a vanishingly small fraction of people do. A Japanese journalist, Yoichi Shimatsu, made some specific factual claims, but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever followed up or corroborated his research. As for the two journalists cited here, it's not clear how reliable they are. I note that Saransh Sehgal states that Trinley Thaye Dorje now lives in Germany, which I've never heard anywhere else.

In any event, the description in the article right now seems to exaggerate what the sources say. Neither source claims that "many" exiled Tibetans believe these things. Both emphasise that there's no hard evidence for the claims, but the article text does not reflect that. The Sehgal article also gives a more moderate version of the rumour, viz that "the Karmapa has been tricked by China since 2000 to create vexatious situations in India", but the article text only gives the more extreme version.

I'm not quite sure what to do with this material, but it definitely needs revision.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To add some other weights for balance, the escape section can be expanded, detailing the warm welcome from the Dalai Lama, but also the surprise from others, including some suspicions. His approval as Karmapa can also be expanded, eschewing the passive voice and detailing fully the PRC's role and exile reactions. "Many" is definitely unverifiable and will be removed. Quigley (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have partially implemented the changes above, but not all, for a lack of timely reliable sources at hand. But to quickly allay BLP sensitivities, the offending sentence now follows the source's wording very carefully: "Despite a lack of evidence, some believe that he is a Chinese spy." Quigley (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ "China's Copy-Watch Panchen Lama". Asia Sentinel. 2010-06-09. Retrieved 2010-08-23. 
  2. ^ Sehgal, Saransh (2010-04-15). "Entente cordiale blocks Karmapa Lama". Dharamsala: Asia Times. Retrieved 2010-08-23. 

Recent arrests[edit]

I'd just like to announce my intent to do something about the not-so-subtle whitewash of the incident that is now being portrayed by the most recent section in the article. The way it reads at this point is that nothing out of the ordinary was going on with the money at all, and that it might very well be Trinley Thaye Dorje's fault or those close to him that there was even suspicion against these individuals in the first place because he has close ties to Indian intelligence and that the money was just innocent donations from followers.

This is not what Indian officials believe yet, contrary to the impression conveyed. Individuals are still under arrest, and though suspicion is not heavily on Ogyen Trinley himself it doesn't mean this was all an innocent misunderstanding, or some secret plot by an opposing faction. News is coming out today of Indian officials saying that there is no certainty of anyone in this case, Ogyen Trinley included having a "clean chit."

A recent letter from Shamar Rinpoche contains his assertion that claims of him having masterminded this, or having influenced Indian intelligence in any of this are coming from a single unreliable source. If nobody strenuously objects I'm going to modify it to reflect some of the above-mentioned facts. Changchub (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)