Talk:Karmapa controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The Situation with this page 10/26/05 2 moved from Karmapa 3 Note to newcomers 4 Needs attention? 5 Summary 6 References 6.1 Jigme Rinpoche (disambig wanted) 7 Last changes on Recent developments 8 The Australasian subplot 9 What the heads of the other schools said 10 About the endorsers 11 H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche 12 Recent reversion 12.1 Gearing and the black magic rumour 12.2 Further comments 13 Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche 14 Thrangu's two letters 15 Move info from Ole Nydahl page?

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

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

[edit] moved from Karmapa

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

[edit] Note to newcomers

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)

[edit] Needs attention?

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.

[edit] Summary

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)

[edit] References

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

[edit] Jigme Rinpoche (disambig wanted)

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

[edit] Last changes on Recent developments

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 www.karmapa.org website can be referenced. Csbodine 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Australasian subplot

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, the questionable recognition of a NZ tulku, Pong Re Rinpoche, and 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: http://www.rigpedorje.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=10

thankyou
Angela
buddhagirl49@yahoo.com
203.214.21.195 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)

[edit] What the heads of the other schools said

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)

[edit] About the endorsers

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)

[edit] H.E. Beru Khentse Rinpoche

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)

[edit] Recent reversion

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 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG21Ad06.html .

What do you think?

Rebecca

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 http://karmapa.controverse.free.fr/VA/VA-Quelques-donnees.html#_Toc3

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)

[edit] Gearing and the black magic rumour

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.

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)

[edit] Further comments

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 http://karmapa.controverse.free.fr/VA/VAdifficultes.html 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)

[edit] Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

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)

[edit] Thrangu's two letters

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)

[edit] Move info from Ole Nydahl page?

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)