Malcolm wrote:First, my authority is not Tibet, my authority is sutra and tantra. I do not have to accept Tibetan cultural practices as authoritative, I don't eat Tsampa, drink Chang, or herd yaks.
So the tulku system is on par with eating tsampa and herding yaks...
Greg, the tulku system started in Kagyu, than spread to other schools. It is not a universal thing in Buddhism, it never existed in India, and it does not need to exist in the West.
Neither did/is Dzogchen, you reckon we should get rid of that too?
I can understand your attachment to it...
I am not attached to it. If I was attached to it I would not be calling for its reformation. I am just not averse to it.
This does not mean that there are no reincarnations, or that no one can recognize a reincarnation with accuracy.
I never said this.
But the point is that there is a sufficient amount of corruption in the system to call the whole system into question.
This is our fundamental point of disagreement.
As long as there is no clearly defined criteria by which a tulku may be recognized, then I am afraid it is just a matter of faith whether one accepts someone as a reincarnation of a master or not.
I agree up to a certain point, but we have already had this discussion.
This is why I bring up the examples of NKT. For example, according to them, <redacted> is Sakya Pandita's reincarnation. According to your logic, since this is the opinion of Trijiang Rinpoche, I should accept it, or at least not dispute it. Can't you see how crazy your point of view is? according to your point of view, I should accept that a worldly spirit is the reincarnation of one of the most important Sakya masters.
So you are not capable of maintaining pure view. Neither am I. That means that in most circumstances we are guided by personal expressions of attachment and aversion So just admit it and join the club!