User talk:Ogress/Archive 56
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ogress. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Dalai Lama - History section
Hi Ogress, I am a new user and interested in Buddhism, Tibet and the Dalai Lamas amongst other stuff. This is about the History section on the Dalai Lama, on which I saw you've done some significant and clearly knowledgable work. My concern is that the whole History section doesn't have enough to do with the actual Dalai Lamas, it seems a bit too Mongol-centric to me, tracing the influence of the Mongolian Khans in Tibet which I agree is a major subject in itself. And perhaps, the history of how the tulku system arose within the Karma Kagyu tradition was going to be related at some point to the emergence of the Dalai Lama lineage? It is not clear. Perhaps the history of Mongolian involvement was also intended to be related to how the title Dalai Lama arose? Neither clear, nor mentioned. The whole section makes no mention of any Dalai Lama until the 5th in the second subsection, and the 6th; then subsequent Dalai Lamas are mentioned under subsection titled 'The 7th Dalai Lama' very briefly in passing. However a lot is written in the section about history with the Mongols, Manchus and so forth. We have illustrations of Kublai Khan (mentioned in the text as 'Qubilai') and Gushi Khan (also mentioned once) but no illustration of Dalai Lamas. In all it seems more like a history of how the Mongol Khans interfered in Tibet and set up the 5th Dalai Lama. This history is all very interesting but it is not clear how most of it relates to the Dalai Lama. Should the History of the Dalai Lamas not start with the origins of the 1st and deal with them one by one with a description of each one? In fact should it not start with reference to Dromtön who is popularly considered by Tibetans a forerunner of the Dalai Lamas and himself the 45th incarnation of Chenrezig (R A Stein, Tibetan Civilization, p.139)? Or, at least, the history of the Khans and Tibet could be better related to the Dalai Lamas; including the key point how in 1578 it was Altan Khan (not mentioned anywhere) who conferred the title 'Dalai Lama' on the 3rd and thus posthumously to the 1st and 2nd.
I would just like to know what you think about this rather than rudely barging in and starting to edit it on a more Dalai Lama-centric basis myself. All we can glean from the current history is that the Mongolian Gushi Khan set up the 5th Dalai Lama in power and the rest did very little until the 13th. From the other books I've read like Glenn Mullin's "The 14 Dalai Lamas" it is my impression that the history of the Dalai Lamas could be written under this title with more relevance and more information about who they actually were and what they achieved. Hope you see my pov. Best wishes, MacPraughan (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @MacPraughan: This belongs on talk, where I will repeat myself: First, there are a few things to clear up. Who considers Dromtön the 39th incarnation-predecessor of the Dalai Lamas? Second, Teacher-Tulkus are demonstrably a creation of the Mongols, starting with the Sakya. His very title is Mongol: talɛ is "the sea" in Standard Mongolian. Certainly there is no citable list of recognised Avalokiteśvara incarnations starting some 40-something teachers before the 3rd Dalai Lama, who was the first of his name - the 1st and second were retroactively titled. I think we need to clearly delineate between statements of piety made by Gelug apologists and biographers and factual material. I also saw no information on the Treasury of Lives to suggest he was considered an incarnation. I'd also like to point out that the Gelug founder was inspired by the Kadam rather than actually being Kadampa himself, and hence the need to underline authority by incorporating Kadam luminaries sort of overshadows this claim to authenticity. Do you have citations to demonstrate this?
- Second, if there is missing material on the other Dalai Lamas, it could be added. Many of them are ignored as not particularly notable historical figures aside from their political importance as leader of Tibet. Ogress smash! 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)