I never said anything to the contrary.Norwegian wrote:Even if a tulku says "I had such and such memories", how can you confirm that? How can you know that? You can't (unless you're on the bhumis yourself and you've developed the ability to read others minds, etc.). It's taken on faith, no?
A nice story, but it is talking about a specific instance. You cannot generalise to all tulku on the basis of this tale. If you did then you would have to say that your teacher and his son are deceivers and that the real tulku they claim to be incarnations of, are actually incarnated as beasts-of-burden of ones choice. I don't think you want to go there, right?Norwegian wrote:I recall a story, and I'll have to do it from memory as I can't find it to post here, but I believe it was Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo who recognized a tulku of a teacher of a monastery. A little boy was enthroned and everybody were super thrilled that their teacher had returned. One student however had his doubts, and went up to Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, and asked if the little boy really was the tulku. Mind you, this was Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, one of the greatest masters of Tibet. Who could ever doubt such a master? Well, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo took aside the monk, then pointed outside, at a donkey. Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo told the monk that the donkey was the real rebirth of the teacher. So, basically the boy was enthroned just for arousing faith in the monks. If you had asked the monks if that boy was the rebirth of their teacher, they would naturally say "Of course he is! He was recognized! There's no mistake."
There is actually no objective verification of anything. All verification is based on a majority of subjective opinion. So why would it be different for tulku? Why do we, in this case, call it faith and in other cases objective verification?Norwegian wrote:Malcolm said there's no way of giving an objective verification, and that it is all 100% faith based. So asking for objective evidence in that case is rather difficult...
So... How does this relate to two well-experienced lamas who have differing opinions of some reincarnation or emanation? How much of actual practice is necessary to not make mistakes?Norwegian wrote:... Through personal experience.
... But if you really want to know, you have to see for yourself, and that means you need to practice. So you can take faith as the basis, and go from there through actual practice. Eventually if you practiced well enough, you may have one-pointed concentration, dhyana, etc. Perhaps through practice you develop the ability to recall your previous lives. And so then you - Sherab Dorje - have done this for yourself. Now you've confirmed this to yourself that indeed there are previous lives and rebirth, and you no longer need to take it on faith alone. So then one day maybe you tell someone else about this, and then they're left with no other choice than to either reject your story as nonsense or accept it as being true, taking it on faith... Unless of course they have developed the ability to really read minds and so on...
You are in the Tibetan Buddhism section of the forum and you claim that viewing one's teacher as a Buddha is a medieval belief? The only thing this highlights is your complete lack of comprehension of what this actually means and a complete lack of respect for the Vajrayana.zenman wrote:Medieval beliefs. Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center. It is entirely misleading to spread such beliefs. I've seen the fruit of this when it is realised that the guru isn't a buddha after all.
It happens all the time.Btw, referring to my OP. Anyone know any cases when two lamas do not agree on some reincarnation? I'm sure I've read of few of them but don't remember any specifics.
You don't need to believe someone else's guru is an actual Buddha, just your own. That is all that matters. If you cannot believe your root Guru is a Buddha, than you have no business taking any kind of Vajrayāna teachings and more to the point, the Vajrayāna teachings you do take will not be effective.zenman wrote: Medieval beliefs. Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center. It is entirely misleading to spread such beliefs. I've seen the fruit of this when it is realised that the guru isn't a buddha after all.
This again. There is no objective evidence. But if most lineage heads and some other lamas (just 1 or 2) said so and so is a rebirth/emanation or whatever then I would follow that.Sherab Dorje wrote:I never said anything to the contrary.Norwegian wrote:Even if a tulku says "I had such and such memories", how can you confirm that? How can you know that? You can't (unless you're on the bhumis yourself and you've developed the ability to read others minds, etc.). It's taken on faith, no?
And so I ask for the third time: WHAT CONSTITUTES OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE?
You can falsify a chemistry experiment, but not a tulku recognition. As for the latter, you either believe it or you don't.Sherab Dorje wrote:There is actually no objective verification of anything. All verification is based on a majority of subjective opinion. So why would it be different for tulku? Why do we, in this case, call it faith and in other cases objective verification?Norwegian wrote:Malcolm said there's no way of giving an objective verification, and that it is all 100% faith based. So asking for objective evidence in that case is rather difficult...
Yes there surely, literally, are, even at some Zen and Theravadin centers (not every dharma center though).zenman wrote: Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center.
As Malcolm noted the view is that you regard your teacher/lama as a Buddha. And then you receive the blessings of him or her actually being a Buddha even if they are not even on the bhumis in reality.zenman wrote:Medieval beliefs. Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center....Malcolm wrote: In Vajrayāna it does not really matter, since you are supposed to regard your guru as an actual buddha in every respect.
KirtAmong us, in our own daily lives,
who is not reverently grateful for the protections of life:
food, drink, and clothing!
Though they are inanimate things,
they are nonetheless the warm flesh and blood,
the merciful incarnations of Buddha."
I've always been a bit unclear on this point. Does an emanation know they are an emanation? Do they have the mind stream of the bodhisattva they are an emanation of? And is there a difference between an emanation and a manifestation? For example, the Dalai Lama is described as the manifestation of Avalokiteśvara, how would that work?Malcolm wrote: An "emanation" is someone who is in fact an expression of the compassion of a fully awakened Buddha who may manifest as an ordinary person externally, but internally has all the full mature qualities of a Buddha.
You're not supposed to believe that every robewearer with a title at the dharma centre next door is a Buddha. Nor are you supposed to take an idiot or imposter as your guru. The difficulty of Vajrayana practice is, of course, to find a teacher who is worthy of being seen as a Buddha. And to be a student worthy of being accepted by such a master. If people realise that "the guru isn't a Buddha after all" they have made the mistake not to check the guru in the first place.zenman wrote:Medieval beliefs. Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center. It is entirely misleading to spread such beliefs. I've seen the fruit of this when it is realised that the guru isn't a buddha after all.
How do you feel in general when the Dalai Lama recognizes a tulku?Malcolm wrote:You can falsify a chemistry experiment, but not a tulku recognition. As for the latter, you either believe it or you don't.Sherab Dorje wrote:There is actually no objective verification of anything. All verification is based on a majority of subjective opinion. So why would it be different for tulku? Why do we, in this case, call it faith and in other cases objective verification?Norwegian wrote:Malcolm said there's no way of giving an objective verification, and that it is all 100% faith based. So asking for objective evidence in that case is rather difficult...
In the case of ChNN, I believe it. In the case of both Karmapas, I don't believe in either one.
And why should we care what you believe? I mean you said it is 100% faith, so any view based on 100% faith is as valid, or invalid, as any other view. Right?Malcolm wrote:In the case of ChNN, I believe it. In the case of both Karmapas, I don't believe in either one.
If the teacher actualy is a buddha, then great. I didn't say one shouldn't have high regard to ones teacher or his teachings.Sherab Dorje wrote:You are in the Tibetan Buddhism section of the forum and you claim that viewing one's teacher as a Buddha is a medieval belief? The only thing this highlights is your complete lack of comprehension of what this actually means and a complete lack of respect for the Vajrayana.
I repeat: I didn't say one shouldn't have high regard to ones teacher or his teachings. There are so extremely few who actually are attained the level of a buddha. This does not take the power away of the teachings which are given by teachers lesser than a full buddha.Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to believe someone else's guru is an actual Buddha, just your own. That is all that matters. If you cannot believe your root Guru is a Buddha, than you have no business taking any kind of Vajrayāna teachings and more to the point, the Vajrayāna teachings you do take will not be effective.
You say that literally there are fully enlightened buddhas at every dharma center? With great respect and gratitude to those many buddhist teachers and masters I have met and studied with, none of them, in my personal view have attained this level. I do not mean to say bad things here.kirtu wrote:Yes there surely, literally, are, even at some Zen and Theravadin centers (not every dharma center though).zenman wrote: Surely there are no buddhas teaching at every dharma center.
However this statement was made in the context of Vajrayana (specifically Tibetan Buddhism) and is not meant to be literal.
A good post. Common sense.JKhedrup wrote:I think the point Malcolm makes is a pertinent one. From the Vajrayana POV, it is important to view one's Vajra Master as enlightened. This becomes even more essential with regards to Highest Yoga Tantra.
However, whether one views other masters as enlightened or not does not have a huge impact on one's practice, because there is not samaya relationship with those masters. So for Malcolm, it is not a huge deal that he doesn't view the Karmapa as enlightened, for me, it is (as I have taken several initiations from Karmapa UTD). It IS, however, important that Malcolm cultivate an awareness of ChNN and HH Sakya Trizin as enlightened beings, because they are his vajra masters. Since I have no samaya relationship with ChNN, how I view him is not so important (thought I certainly don't rule him out as a realized master).
In the end there is no official rule that Vajrayana practitioners have to view every recognized tulku as an enlightened being, and thank goodness. However, one should try to cultivate the view of their personal vajra masters as enlightened, whether they are tulkus or not. In my case, the current abbot of Sera Jey Monastery, Gyumey Khensur Lobsang Delek Rinpoche, is not a tulku. He is simply a Geshe whose titles reflect his monastic position. However, due to receiving Yamantaka, Anuguhaya Hayagriva and other empowerments from him, I cultivate a view of him as a holy being.
In terms of tulkus in the monastery, I can tell you the general Gelug approach is "wait and see". The tulkus in the monastery are expected to demonstrate qualities that arise from serious study and practice. Most monks remain rather skeptical with regards to their tulku brethren, unless they demonstrate some sort of mastery of the teachings. Some tulkus end up not being very devoted in their studies and practice, and never develop a following of students in the monastery because they aren't really seen as qualified teachers, despite their title. (ironically, this type of tulku often ends up in the West with a very devoted stream of followers).
At one of the Lam Rim teachings I attended of the elder Geshe at our centre, Geshe Sonam Gyaltsen, he joked about this a little bit. He was explaining the 12 Links of Dependent Arising and joked that "since I am not a tulku, you get a discounted 12 Links teaching- a real bargain. Generally, when a tulku is teaching the same material, centres charge double. One has to analyze if one is getting the best "deal". Will the actual explanation of the Geshe and the Tulku educated at the same monastery differ in most cases? Probably not."
Even HHDL said once at Sera (I was there), "there is no guaranteee that more than half of the assembled tulkus here are actually reicarnations of their predecessors". So he also has a rather skeptical view towards this system, and has stated many times there are far too many tulkus. And also that, in the Gelug tradition, at least, 1 fully qualified and cultivated Lharampa Geshe is more valuable than 5 lacklustre tulkus.
In the end, the Westerners (in the Gelug scene with which I am most familiar) seem to take the tulku titles far more seriously than most of the Tibetans I know. Where the Tibetans do show a sort of biased blind faith loyalty (IMO) is regarding the tulkus of their own House group. Which makes sense, as this is usually the reincarnation of an important teacher from their own village.
Sure and we just have the western hassle of an extraordinarily over-inflated estimation of the value of ego and personal opinion to deal with.zenman wrote:We have just been lucky to avoid the Eastern hassle
Norwegian wrote:
Anyways, when the Buddha taught his Dharma, he didn't say that you should settle for believing and merely having faith in it, he said you should see for yourself. That is the only way to know for sure. Through personal experience.
