Comments on: Old chestnuts about the Karmapa and the Dalai Lama

By: Mary Finnigan

Mary Finnigan — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:01:12 +0000

Hello again Alex — been a while. Have to say I am underwhelmed by the ongoing Karmapa controversy. This thread is more than a year old and I have only just caught up with it. For what its worth,I now sit firmly on the fence on two apparently hot TB issues:
*Dorje Shugden — I do not think this has anything to do with western Buddhist practitioners. I steer well clear of Protector wars.
*Karmapa authenticity or otherwise. I know people I respect on both sides of the divide. My advice is to back off and get on with TB practice.

By: Dechen Z

Dechen Z — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:55:39 +0000

Dear Alex,
Thank you so much for your blog on this. Most Kagyupas in the Himalayas get so confused about this so-called controversy since none of the monasteries (other than Shamar Rinpoche and Beyul Khyentse Rinpoche’s) have EVER supported anyone other than HH Ogyen Trinley Dorje. However, partly due to this nonsense, we organized the rally yesterday – IB estimated that over 40,000 people in Sikkim – of Sikkimese ethnicity (all three ethnicities – again, might dispel some misconceptions re: HHK’s role with Tibetan politics) – participated in the rally. We are so tired of the noise from Europe and on the web and it was the only way we knew how to stop it from spreading further. The photos and videos dont lie!

Thank you.

By: Cone Beckham

Cone Beckham — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:04:16 +0000

Hi, Alex-
I couldn’t link to the article, but that’s okay…you’ve summarized the points quite well.
Here’s a link that lays out the legal manuevers, at least through 2000, though with some bias, it should be noted. Interestingly, no one seems to have attempted to discredit some of these claims. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the Indian Express…perhaps others can…

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000128/ian28040.html

By: Alex W

Alex W — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:36:19 +0000

Dear Sachara,
I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at. By “linkage” I assume you mean what we usually call “lineage”.
And when you say “may not be the the said successor”, I take it you mean that he may not become the next figurehead for the Tibetans in exile. Is that right?
If I do understand you correctly, then I think the answer is “of course”. But you speak as if there is a question of merging the lineages, and I myself would think that such a merger would be not just unlikely – it would be unthinkable. It is just not on the cards. That is connected with my point that there is surely no thought at all that the Karmapa would in any official way “take over” from the Dalai Lama – why should he, and how could he? But he *could* become the standard around which the Tibetans rally, just as Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyu people rally around the Dalai Lama now.
The same applies, if I understand you correctly, to the question of “confusion of lineage”. I honestly don’t think that anyone who is familiar with these things – from HH Dalai Lama and HH Karmapa down to the likes of you and me – even entertains the idea of a “merger” between the Kagyu and Gelug traditions. The whole idea is utterly foreign. That does not mean that we can’t all be friends!
As to whether the Karmapas have always been non-political – I have seen that point made, but I’m not sure that history really bears it out. Then again, there is no sign that the Karmapa has any particular political ambition – all the signs are that he is motivated by the welfare of all beings, and by his responisibilites towards the Kagyu school in particular.

By: Sachara

Sachara — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:30:01 +0000

Hi Alex, (Pls keep this version and delete the previous one)

About the Dalai Lama’s succession issue, I would like to raise a question about the Karmapa’s mission in his age-old linkage tradition. There are two points which show that 17th Karmapa may not be the the said successor. Firstly, 17th Karmapa is the spiritual leader of the Karma Kagyu linkage which is one of the four schools in Tibetan Buddhism while Dalai Lama is more belong to Gelupa. It is unlikely that a spiritual leader from Kagyu will “rule” the other schools. That does not only arouse a problem related to sort of “partisan” concerns. It is also a technical problem if you know under the name “Dalai Lama” there are quite a lot of resource that the title “Dalai Lama “owes”. Also, it will arouse the confusion of linkage which means Kagyu’s teaching may have to mix with Gelupa which would not be so easy when you have more ideas about how a company merge with another. My point is if we come closer to the “system” of Tibetan buddhist linkage; there is quite a lot of problem in this issue.

Also in Karmapa’s tradition, the position itself has a long tradition of being a “purely” religious leader and it has been recorded in several occasions that Karmapas have rejected the invitation from the Emperors to “rule” the Tibetan buddhism. As a buddhist myself, I understand every lama has his own mission in the religion itself. That is also my own wish that Karmapa can remain a spiritual leader that helps us in our way for enlightenment.

By: Mick Brown

Mick Brown — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:55:21 +0000

Terrific posting, Alex. It’s a pity the Times site allows so little space for a proper response

By: Norma Levine

Norma Levine — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:12:35 +0000

Dear`Alex,
Thank you for clarifying this for confused readers of that confused article. All you say is relevent and correct.