Talk:5th Dalai Lama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:3rdDalaiLama.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. Let's tweak the wording.

I'm gonna go back in and change one little things back here shortly from User:Jsp722's edit from earlier today, while also amending one other change to read something different from what it had before, and explain my changes here.

One critique in passing

If I may be so bold as to offer one quick critique, which I really do mean constructively: edit summaries which read things like "Replaced dubious and grossly biased phrasing and terminology with neutral one" might be read by some users as rather combative, because there's really no place to respond to them. It's also a little bit jarring to receive a notification email which includes an edit summary like that. Because it's the first thing a prior editor with a page on his watchlist sees, rather than the edit itself, it has roughly the effect of getting an email from out of the blue that just reads "dude – you suck". In fact, I found myself quite pleasantly surprised on comparing the actual diff, that User:Jsp722's edit itself was in fact thoughtful, constructive, and definitely constitutes a net improvement to what was already there, even if the wording of the edit summary was, perhaps, a bit brusque.

I've done some of the same thing myself, so please don't think I'm shaking a stick at you or anything, here – it's really just that questions of interpretation and presentation and stuff like that really should be discussed on articles' discussion pages, like this one, rather than in edit summaries, which once entered, can not be changed. But having said all that, an edit summary more to the effect of "replaced two instances of 'Dolgyal' with "Dorje Shugden' and changed some other wording" would frankly have been rather more helpful, insfar as at least it might prevent other editors from getting their hackles up for no reason prior to actually reviewing a given edit.  :^) :^)

Explaining my actual changes

In line 131 I'm changing "explain" back to "clarify", because "clarify" is a more specific word (in my mind anyway) than "explain"; but I'm leaving User:Jsp722's change in wording from "Dolgyal's status" to "his view about Dorje Shugden's status" in the same sentence because I do, in fact, believe it constitutes an overall improvement in terms of contextualization. Likewise, the prior change of "habit" to "reputation" is a decided improvement.

This next one may prove more contentious, so I'm going to try and explain my reasoning – please rest assured my intent isn't to make hash out of this sentence (which is probably a bit over-long and over-complex to begin with). My prior edit had read "despite having propitiated Shugden with enthusiasm for a while", and User:Jsp722 changed it to "while propitiating Dorje Shugden with enthusiasm". I'm going to change this parenthetical statement to read "regardless of his having enthusiastically propitiated Shugden" in order to prevent the presumably unintentional implication of strict simultaneity between

1. the conferral of Kalacakra empowerments on the one hand, and
2. the propitiation of Shugden on the other,

which the specific adverb "while" does carry in its wake, and the subsequent inaccurate implication (which, by way of assuming good faith, I'm presuming was unintentional) that Shugden propitiation is in any way an integral part of the practice of conferring Kalacakra empowerment – which in fact, it is not.

My simultaneous change, in the same exact phrase, of what is now the second occurrence of Shugden's name within the paragraph to read simply "Shugden" rather than "Dorje Shugden" is effectively no more than a newswriter's convention which I've also sought to employ throughout the rest of the article in at least a somewhat consistent manner, by which means the first mention (sometimes, per section, other times, per paragraph) of someone by name is by full name, and subsequent mentions by last name alone. It's largely a stylistic concern.

One question

Line 137: my prior edit had read "the structure called Trode Khangsar built posthumously for Drakpa Gyaltsen (as Dolgyal)", User:Jsp722's edit changed it to read "the structure called Trode Khangsar built for Drakpa Gyaltsen (as Dorje Shugden)". The question of whether the structure was built posthumously (to Drakpa Gyaltsen) or not should be a simply-enough tracked down matter of fact. While I'm tempted to change it back, I'm going to presume for the time being that a citation (or some similar manner of clarification) might be forthcoming, but would ask whether the implication of the statement as it now reads is, in fact, intended to be that the structure was built during Gyaltsen's lifetime for him as Shugden. If so, it does strike me as odd. But I'm sure someone else will know more about this than I do, and hope they will clarify things without having to clutter up the text with "disambiguation needed" tags, which just come across as sloppy.

Thanks! ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it} { ζ(3) } {did it}} 01:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Military expeditions need citation.

Under § "His Rule of Tibet", sub-§ "In terms of foreign policy", the words "his military expeditions against Bhutan and the war against Ladakh" appear due to a subsequent edit while I was away. I've tweaked the punctuation so the sentence continues to flow -- but could someone with some knowledge of this please provide an appropriate citation, in the event that I'm unable to track down such on my own?

Please also keep in mind the existing structure of the article: I do believe (presuming that the claim will in fact be properly cited) that a new subsection is likely called for, to be reflected in the article's table of contents.

Thanks for the edit, whoever-you-are-who-did-it, and I'm sorry I'm unable at this time to actually remedy the situation more than simply point out my concerns, but for the time being (following an extended absence from the joys of editing) I regret to say that I remain rather limited in what I'm able to do from public access computers.

All the best!

༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it} { ζ(3) } {did it}} 15:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing "His authorization of mass murder for political reasons”

Under the section “His rule of Tibet” is a quotation which had been posted under the rather scary subtitle “His authorization of mass murder for political reasons”. This was cited from a book by Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. The quotation is incompletely and erroneously copied into the article without comment or context, as follows:

In 1660, referring to Tibetan rebels, he wrote: "Make the male lines like trees that have had their roots cut; Make the female lines like roots [sic] that have dried up in winter; Make the children and grandchildren like eggs smashed against the rocks; Make the servants and followers like heaps of grass consumed by fire;... In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their name."

Since neither the article nor its cited source gave any other context except to say 'it was an instruction to deal with Tibetan rebels in the year 1660', I tracked the original source down to an essay by Tibetologist Elliot Sperling published on a website run by a German Buddhist monk called info-buddhism.com. This site says it addresses complex issues related to Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama as well as Buddhism in general with the aim to counter the overblown caricatures or simplistic and often ideologically tainted portrayals of these issues, circulating on the internet or elsewhere in the name of enlightening us.

Sperling’s essay, entitled "Orientalism” and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition, is an attempt to put violent wars waged by various Buddhist-dominated parties in Tibet in past centuries into a proper historical context. He quotes the translation of the passage in question as follows, as a letter by the 5th Dalai Lama:

“In early 1660 he was confronted with a situation that he himself described as one of chaotic strife rooted in a rebellion in Tsang. Asserting that he was acting for the sake of beings in the area of Nyangme (Nyang smad), he sent out instructions that were direct and clear:

[Of those in] the band of enemies who have despoiled the duties entrusted to them: Make the male lines like trees that have had their roots cut; Make the female lines like brooks that have dried up in winter; Make the children and grandchildren like eggs smashed against rocks; Make the servants and followers like heaps of grass consumed by fire; Make their dominion like a lamp whose oil has been exhausted;

In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.

In a footnote, Sperling cites the original Tibet text and its source, transliterated as follows:

rGyal-dbang lnga-pa, Rgya-Bod-Hor-Sog-gi mchog-dman bar-pa-rnams-la 'phrin-yig snyan-ngag-tu bkod-pa rab-snyan rgyud-mang (Xining, 1993), p. 225: gnyer-du gtad-pa'i dam-nyams dgra-tshogs-kyi/pho-brgyud shing-sdong rtsa-ba bcad-ltar thong/ mo-brgyud dgun-gyi chu-phran skems-ltar thong/ bu-tsha sgo-nga brag-la brdabs-ltar thong/ g.yog-'khor rtsa-phung me-yis bsregs-ltar thong/ mnga'-thang snum-zad mar-me bzhin-du thong/ mdor-na ming dang rjes-tsam med-par mdzod/ (the full text of the letter is on pp. 223-25).”

As such, in order to reflect in the subtitle a truer rendering of the way the passage was presented, on 28 October I edited it to read “His instructions to punish rebels” and I edited the citation of the source of this passage from the book by Kiernan to the essay by Sperling.

Further, I learned from a Tibetan that the final word in the exhortation, mdzod, is, in fact, a word more accurately translated as ‘respectfully beseech’ and more likely to be used in a ritual prayer or invocation to a protective deity such as Mahakala (the wrathful form of Chenrezig or Avalokiteshvara) than in an order from a head of state to his military officer. Since there is no information yet as to whom the request was addressed, or whether it was carried out, there seems inadequate evidence available to confirm that the passage comprises an instruction to punish rebels, rather than a prayer to remove obstacles or to subdue opposition through invocation and so forth, as is commonly done in Tibetan religious ritual.

In the cause of the article's accuracy I have now contacted Mr Sperling and other concerned specialist historians to try to get clarification on the following points: 1. Was it a genuine written request signed by the Dalai Lama (as it is said that all his writings were personally signed by him) or could it be written by his Desi (deputy), who by all accounts was more aggressive in the violent prosecution of war to subdue opposition and was known to contravene his master’s instructions to negotiate and establish friendly relations with the Tsangpa? 2. To whom the request was addressed, exactly? 3. What were the exact circumstances behind the request? 4. Was the request carried out, and if so, literally or otherwise? 5. To what extent if any can the request be considered either as poetic hyperbole as might be common in the writings of the 5th, or as a prayer to a protective deity such as Mahakala? 6. If it was indeed sent as a request to a military officer, were there any verbal instructions to accompany it which were at variance with or contradictory to the written letter, as Shakabpa writes was common in such cases? 7. Why is the drastic and merciless tone so much at variance with the kind and considerate tone of instructions he gave in very similar circumstances as evidenced in Shakabpa, with lengthy quotations, on pp.106-109?

While continuing researches, in view of the real meaning of the Tibetan word, “mdzod” (‘respectfully beseech’), I am provisionally editing the word “instructions” in the subtitle to read “request”, and am adding some suitable qualifications to the quotation while awaiting clarification on at least some of the above points.

I would welcome any input from anyone with anything to add to this to clarify any of the questions or with a view towards otherwise helping to improve the article. MacPraughan (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above comments, the original text in Tibetan that was misinterpreted by Mr Sperling in his article can be seen here if any scholars of Tibetan would like to examine it: http://www.tbrc.org/#library_work_ViewByOutline-O1GS1058181GS106840%7CW20448. Furthermore, I have written to Mr Samten Karmay for his opinion about the passage in question and he informs as follows:

"Dear Mr Jones, Thank you for providing me full information on whereabouts of the letter. I finally managed to download it. Judged from the context found in the autobiography it is written by the 5th DL though not signed with any name which is rather unusual. It is clearly addressed to the religious protector called Tsiu [a.k.a. Nojin Chenpo], one of the main protectors of the Samye Monastery in Tibet. This means he dialogues with the spirit through its oracle. In the letter he qualifies Depa Norbu and his nephew as damnyam (dam nyams), "vow perverter" and chidra (spyi dgra), "public enemy". So it is as I stated before a kind of exhortation addressed to a spirit, not an order given to a commander or inferior officer. The DL refers to himself as rigdzin (rig 'dzin), knowledge-holder usually referred to a Tantrist. There is nothing particular about this exhortation, because it is a general practice among Tibetan Buddhists to beseech the religious protectors in this way. I do not see how this can be cited as an example of an act of violence." End of quotation from Samten Karmay.

This being the case, I have written to Mr Sperling and the owner of the website which published the misinterpretation sending the original text in Tibetan and Samten Karmay's correct interpretation, asking for a correction or retraction to be issued and am waiting to see the result.MacPraughan (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

More details about Tsiu or Tsiu Marpo [a.k.a. Tsiu Mhar, a.k.a. Nojin Chenpo], the warrior protective spirit invoked by the 5th Dalai Lama, as referred to by Samten Karma above, can be seen here: http://www.himalayanart.org/items/15245. MacPraughan (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact the original offending article was first published in 1996 by Wisdom Publications, MA, USA, in their book "Imagining Tibet" by Thierry Dodin and Heinz Rather as an essay by Sperling in Section III. The author Elliot Sperling has re-examined the original source text and confirmed he was in error - the so-called "order to a general" was nothing more than a prayer to a yaksha (spirit). He has confirmed his error in a new note to footnote 5 to his essay published on info-Buddhism.com here: http://info-buddhism.com/Orientalism_Violence_Tibetan_Buddhism_Elliot_Sperling.html#fn5.

His footnote says: "'Note by Elliot Sperling, Feb. 4, 2016: “Rather than indicating military action, as the original article mistakenly implied, the missive from the 5th Dalai Lama was addressed to a protector deity and sought the punishments that are mentioned therein via divine means. I’m grateful to Samten Karmay for pointing this out and to Sean Jones for spurring further inquiry. ES”

I think that on this basis we are now justified in deleting the entire passage as having been based on an error of interpretation or translation and this is what I shall now do. MacPraughan (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done, thank you MacPraughan -- Kt66 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Section "Controversy"

The new section is quite long. Judgments such as "perpetuating the promotion of this slander", and generalisations like "used to slander Tibet, Buddhism and the 5th Dalai Lama" seem to violate WP's WP:NPOV policies. While the Western Shugden Society might have had clearly in mind to slander the Dalai Lama other publications might just have had in mind to educate or enlighten their readers. I will set a NPOV template until the section is made more neutral. There are more things that seem to violate NPOV, with respect to Sperling it says "misconstrued and misrepresented", this seems to insinuate that Sperling – who is also a historian – deliberately chose to misrepresent it but in fact he erred about the context, there was no sinister ambition behind quoting it as far as I can see. It would be more neutral to write "Sperling erred about the context of the prayer and misunderstood it …" or something like this! Moreover, I wonder why errors deriving from using parts of Sperling’s article for Wikipedia should form part of this controversy section:

However, in the intervening 20 years, the mistaken quotation had been seized on by other authors who used it to accuse the 5th Dalai Lama of political mass-murder, genocide and of ‘employing brutality and terror’. Until Oct. 28, 2015 the quotation was highlighted on this article under “His rule of Tibet” with the sub-heading “His authorisation of mass-murder for political reasons” and it was also used to justify the conclusion “In his struggle for power over Tibet, brutality and terror was employed by the Fifth Dalai Lama” which was posted here on Nov. 20, 2015. This can be seen by clicking the tab on ‘View history’ at the top of this article.

I doubt if this is relevant enough to be included. It would be good to hear other editors' opinions. Kt66 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Kt66, which are much appreciated. I am sorry it appears long, I tried to explain all the circumstances, if you would like to shorten it without losing relevant information I would much appreciate it, please feel free.

However, please bear the following in mind.

As regards the use of the word "slander", my understanding of the meaning of this English word is this: a statement which is both (1) not true, and (2) significantly harms someone's or something's reputation. Whether the untrue statement is uttered or written with the express intention to cause harm or not is irrelevant. An erroneous statement, even one uttered or written in good faith by a person believing it to be true, still constitutes a slander if it is harmful as well as untrue.

If you would like to change the wording in accordance with your no doubt excellent understanding of WP's WP:NPOV policies, this is fine by me.

As regards the use of the word "misrepresent", my intention was not by any means to insinuate that Sperling wrote this to deliberately misrepresent anything, far from it! That his error was made in good faith, in an attempt to support and justify the theory and theme of his essay, I have not the slightest doubt. My intention was to state that the error he made, the wording he used and his own (mis)understanding of the context is what 'misrepresented' the import of the original invocation written by the 5th Dalai Lama. I am saying that the person himself was not wrong, it was his action that was faulty. You are welcome to clarify this by editing the text further if you wish.

I included the previous slanderous statements that were posted in Wikipedia as a result of this error in order to demonstrate the harm that had been done as a result of people reading Sperling's essay and using the error in order to harm the reputation of Tibet, Buddhism and the 5th Dalai Lama. I followed it with a list of other books published possibly as a result of researchers seeing the slanderous statements in Wikipedia and then using the passage in their books to harm the reputation of Tibet, Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, sometimes possibly maliciously as in the case of the Western Shugden Society's use of it. Remember, please, that this is just a small selection of 6 books I know of myself, found in the course of a single internet search, which quoted the entire passage; there may be many more instances than six. Each book's author listed uses the slanderous statements to illustrate a different point according to the context and theme of their books. One is using it to attack the 5th Dalai Lama, another is attacking Tibetan Buddhism, another is attacking the Gelugpa sect, another is attacking medieval Tibetan culture or society, and so forth. Therefore it is not really a "generalisation" to say that all these things were harmed or potentially harmed as a result of the (unintended) misrepresentation.

For all these reasons I think it is relevant to illustrate the magnitude of the controversy to include what had been posted in Wikipedia before the error was discovered. Thousands of people are viewing this page over the weeks and months and on Feb. 29th there were nearly 300 views in a single day.

I sincerely thank you for your interest in this topic and your concerns about my edit. I have only one year's experience in editing WP and still have a great deal to learn. I am taking what you have written on board and trying to improve my meagre editing abilities every day. I shall see what will be changed to improve my edit and endeavour to learn from it. MacPraughan (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now edited certain words criticised by Kt66 in order to provide a more NPOV. Hope this helps. MacPraughan (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done some further editing to reduce the length and adjectives in deference to your comments Kt66, please review and see whether your NPOV notice is still justified. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-existence of "his private Lukhang temple"

In the section on "Education and Practice", it is stated as follows:

In his private Lukhang temple (on a lake behind the Potala), one wall of murals illustrates a commentary by Longchenpa on the Dzogchen tantra Rigpa :Rangshar, based on Gyatso's own experience of the practice, depicting characteristic visions of the secret practice of thödgal and Trul khor.

This information is sourced to a book by respected Tibetan Lama called Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a normally reliable Tibetan historian, as compiled by John Shane, a student of his, and published by Snow Lion Publications, a normally reliable source of information in such matters. Following the internal link to Lukhang one sees that it is alleged that Lukhang "is the name of a secret temple of Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama", but no citation is given for this apart from the general reference book for the article which is the same book as that mentioned above, cited in the present article. However, the two external links given in the same "Lukhang" article lead to the website of Asian Arts where two articles by art and history experts concur that the first version of the temple was built in the time of the 6th Dalai Lama ca. 1700, but that it was ultimately constructed and completed by the 8th Dalai Lama in 1791: http://www.asianart.com/associations/shalu/lukhang/index.html and http://www.asianart.com/articles/baker/. I therefore searched Samten Karmay's two seminal works on the 5th for any reference to the Lukhang and drew a blank. I therefore wrote to Samten Karmay to enquire and he replied "The Lukhang temple was not built by the 5th, but during the reign of 6th Dalai Lama, but the date of its establishment is fuzzy". The only other reference to this question that I could trace was in Sir Charles Bell's "Portrait of the Dalai Lama" which says on page 36 that it was built by the 6th Dalai Lama (and therefore could not possibly have been there at the time of the 5th). All this being the case I propose, unless there is any objection, to delete this now dubious assertion (quoted above) based on the citation from Namkhai Norbu's book, with all due respect and apologies.MacPraughan (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to the reliability and reputation of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche as a Tibetan historian I have now written to his office to enquire about the basis for his assertion that the Lukhang existed in the time of the 5th Dalai Lama so that I can put the record straight here and on the Lukhang article. MacPraughan (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

. . . and I shall revert and post the response here as soon as I hear back from Namkhai Norbu's office. MacPraughan (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

New External Link

I added a new external link to a scholarly paper by Samten Karmay which has been published in two different books.

• The Fifth Dalai Lama And His Reunification Of Tibet by Samten Karmay Kt66 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I added another academic WP:RS to the link section:

• The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso – Alexander Gardner

Kt66 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources being quoted // "Kelsang Trinlay"

I just saw that "Kelsang Trinlay" and his website is been quoted in the article. I object that because:

1)"Kelsang Trinlay" is a pseudonym and no real name, therefore the whole website is an anonymous source

2) the website and what "Kelsang Trinlay" writes is a selfpublished source. for an encyclopaedia, the WP rules state, it is not recommended to use such sources (especially not in the context of controversies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

3) "Kelsang Trinlay" and his website don’t meet WP's criteria for WP:RS

4) There is not any academic review about the self-published pieces by anonymous author "Kelsang Trinlay"

1)-4) the whole background doesn’t meet the standards and criteria that make a source suitable to be used on Wikipedia. This is just evident. You can give your opinion/arguments/objections otherwise I will delete the source. Thank you. Kt66 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kt66, as far as I can see you are right on this point and the controversial anonymous source quoted can be deleted forthwith. 92.145.97.180 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I removed it. There were more self-published sources like the anonymous dorjeshugden.com website. I removed that too. Both sites don’t meet the criteria for Wikipedia reliable sources WP:RS. I think this is clear. Kt66 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

questionable is also the content been quoted

Moreover, anonymous "Kelsang Trinlay" is quoted as if a prayer to Dorje Shugden by the 5th Dalai Lama exists. However, researcher Michael von Brück states in his research Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy about this claim: "The problem is that this position has no historical evidence, neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama or elsewhere. It could be assumed that had the Dalai Lama known about any connection between Tsongkhapa (Nechung) and Shugden (Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen) he would have acted differently. Because of the very different position and rank of the two it is rather unlikely that the 5th Dalai Lama would have written such a hymn of self-correction." So, the article does not only list an unqualified source, the whole passage is also not WP:NPOV Kt66 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dzungar conquest of Altishahr

I want to understand on what authority can he grant the title of Khan to a non-Chinggisid ruler that doesn't carry the noble blood of the Borijigin clan. Not even the famous Timur who was going by the footstops of Chenghis Khan took such title Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214190452/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy-section

Does this belong at Wikipedia?

@MacPraughan: this edit added an extende Controversy-section, detailing a perceived mistranslation. I really wonder if this belongs here at Wikipedia, due to WP:UNDUE, and probably some other policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

More specifically, I think it's WP:OR, cq. WP:SYNTHESIS You first write:

In 17th century Tibet, after centuries of bitter rivalry the Gelug superseded the older sects as the country’s pre-eminent religious-political power. Bitterness and controversial accusations from heirs of older sects, who lost power and prestige, still persist today.

Then you write:

For example, in Imagining Tibet, a 1996 collection of essays on Tibet, is an essay by Tibetologist Elliot Sperling which, on page 318, contains a misleading translation error, later re-published by "Tibetan Buddhism in the West". In paras 5 to 7, the 5th Dalai Lama's private prayer to a spirit was unintentionally misrepresented as a "clear instruction to unleash severe military retribution" against rebels, saying the Lama was "using military force to protect the interests of his government and his sect".

References

Do Mullin or Snellgrove & Richardson refer to this mistranslation as an example of 'still persisting bitterness and controversial accusations of older sects'? Probably not; Snellgrove & Richardson is from 1986; Mullin does not refer to Imaging Tibet, as far as I can see. What's more, your text says

the 5th Dalai Lama's private prayer to a spirit was unintentionally misrepresented

I do not see how this is an example of 'still persisting bitterness and controversial accusations of older sects'. You may be right that the fifth Dalai Lama is misrepresented here, but it seems to me that this is not what Wikipedia is intended for.

Furthermore, Sperlig indeed wrote:

...his instructions evince a clear determination to unleash severe military retribution against those who had risen against his authority.

Your text comments (emphasis mine):

In fact, the passage quoted was merely an invocation prayer to a spirit to subdue treasonous Gelugpa officers

whereas Sperling's note says (emphasis mine):

...the missive from the 5th Dalai Lama was addressed to a protector deity and sought the punishments that are mentioned therein via divine means.

So, we can also restate Sperling words as:

...his instructions evince a clear determination to unleash severe divine retribution against those who had risen against his authority.

That's quite a difference, isn't it?

And, in addtion, Sperling also writes:

One may say with some confidence that the Fifth Dalai Lama does not fit the standard image that many people today have of a Dalai Lama, particularly the image of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
I have purposely couched these remarks in provocative terms in order to emphasize the point that we cannot simplistically mix the actions and standards of different eras.

So, his quote and statements are being made in a context; this context has been left out here, and instead framed as an example of 'still persisting bitterness and controversial accusations of older sects'. That's not correct; on the contrary, it seems to be itself an example of such sectarian divides...

It would be more correct to write something like:

Sperling uses the example of the fifth Dalai Lama to make clear that the present-day image of the Dalai Lama as "a Nobel Peace Prize laureate" is different from the role of previous Dalai Lama's, and that "we cannot simplistically mix the actions and standards of different eras."

The rest of the text belongs to a note, at best, with a correction on what the fifth Dalai Lama intended with this invocation. @JimRenge and Ms Sarah Welch: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I read this section and the page 318 of Elliot Sperling source cited ([4] above, [88] in the article). That is WP:OR, because whoever contributed that summary has added personal interpretations, not something that source or another scholarly source states directly or implies. The whole section reads strange, un-encyclopedic and a personal editorialized essay with summary such as "Since 1996, though, other authors, including Wikipedia editors, have cited this misreading to portray the 5th...". That section and this article in general needs a source check, scrubbing out of such OR/essay style (or addition of WP:RS that support what the article states). It should also address other issues that Joshua Jonathan has identified above, perhaps our articles on other historic Dalai Lamas would benefit from a review as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "The whole section reads strange, un-encyclopedic and a personal editorialized essay ..." When I read the section I thought the author might have mixed up the article page with the corresponding talk page. The text is inappropriate in an encyclopedia and should be removed or moved to the talk page per WP:NOT#FORUM. JimRenge (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge, thanks for your comments and advice and for your interest in this article. It was only due to reading certain inaccuracies in articles on Tibet and the Dalai Lamas not too long ago that I first started trying to edit Wikipedia and correct things I knew to be wrong.

The posting of a new section on this article on 10 Oct, 2014 headed "His authorization of mass murder for political reasons" sounded so wrong that I researched its basis, i.e. what was written in Sperling's essay; I got in touch with him as he was known to me (he died last January]), obtained details of his primary source (a 17th century Tibetan text) from him and sent it to the Tibetan scholar Samten Karmay, specialist of the subject and the period, for comment. Karmay was able to confirm immediately, due to the language used and the context, that the "authorization of mass murder" was no order to a general but a mere prayer to a supposed spirit. This was further confirmed in a passage I found in the 5th Dalai Lama's autobiography as translated and published by Karmay, see Karmay 2014, p. 416. I notified Sperling of Karmay's observations and he accepted his own misreading, acknowledging Karmay's correction in his additional note to Note 5 on his online-published essay here:

https://info-buddhism.com/Orientalism_Violence_Tibetan_Buddhism_Elliot_Sperling.html.

If my resulting deletion of the "His authorization of mass murder for political purposes" section and my explanation for this in a new "controversy" section is out of order as being undue and/or OR then please feel free to do the necessary. In any case knowing what I have learned since then I would have written my refutation and rebuttal of the consequences of Sperling's misreading differently. I take on board and appreciate all the points you have all made. Please advise how best to go about correcting this issue as presented. I would be interested to see the result and learn from it.

Especially now that Chinese political propagandists seem to have started contributing their views to these articles based on what is written in their own government publications (see Dalai Lama and 14th Dalai Lama), I would also very much welcome a thorough review by competent editors of all the articles on the historical Dalai Lamas, and that on the institution of the Dalai Lama as well; although this is way beyond my own capability I have tried to improve some of them here and there as part of my learning process. Your help and advice in this matter would be very much appreciated. MacPraughan (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: WP:OR indeed, but absolutely awesome! I'm impressed, and I highly appreciate the effort you've made to set this straight. Oustanding.

I suggest we move this content, plus your explanation, to either a subpage of your userpage, or to a subpage of this page, for future reference, and to honour your efforts. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See 5th Dalai Lama/Image of the 5th Dalai Lama. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved to talkpage

I have moved the "Controversy" section to this talk page: JimRenge (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

In 17th century Tibet, after centuries of bitter rivalry the Gelug superseded the older sects as the country’s pre-eminent religious-political power. Bitterness and controversial accusations from heirs of older sects, who lost power and prestige, still persist today.

Imaging Tibet

For example, in Imagining Tibet, a 1996 collection of essays on Tibet, is an essay by Tibetologist Elliot Sperling which, on page 318, contains a misleading translation error, later re-published by "Tibetan Buddhism in the West". In paras 5 to 7, the 5th Dalai Lama's private prayer to a spirit was unintentionally misrepresented as a "clear instruction to unleash severe military retribution" against rebels, saying the Lama was "using military force to protect the interests of his government and his sect". In fact, the passage quoted was merely an invocation prayer to a spirit to subdue treasonous Gelugpa officers, Depa Norbu and Gonashakpa Ngodrub, who had absconded from their posts in Lhasa, seized the castle at Shigatse and tried to foment a rebellion. Soon after the prayer, the dispute was peacefully resolved and the two rebels abandoned the castle and fled to Dam to the north of Lhasa; they ended up under house arrest guarantee care of Taglung Monastery. After the Tibetan translator of the 5th Dalai Lama's autobiography Samten Karmay confirmed the correct context in 2016, Sperling admitted his mistake and added a note to 'Note 5' of his essay to explain.

Since 1996, though, other authors, including Wikipedia editors, have cited this misreading to portray the 5th as a (quote) 'political mass-murderer' who ‘employed brutality and terror in his struggle for power' (see 'history' of this article on Oct. 10, 2014 and Nov. 20, 2015). These citations disseminated the damaging misquotation further and it has been used in various books to criticise Tibetan culture, Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. The first of these was the FPMT-affiliated publisher, Wisdom Publications who published Sperling's essay containing the false accusation in 1996. Others have followed (this is not an exhaustive list):

• Thierry Dodin & Heinz Räther (1996). Imagining Tibet: Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies. Page 318, Section III. Wisdom Publications, Somerville MA, USA. ISBN 978-0861711918.
• Ben Kiernan (2007). Blood and Soil - A World History of Genocide and Extermination; page 6. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300144253.
• Johan Elverskog (2011). Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road; page 10 and page 222. University of Pennsylvania. ISBN 0812205316.
• Geoff Childs (2004). Tibetan Diary: From Birth to Death and Beyond in a Himalayan Valley of Nepal; chapter 9. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520241336.
• Western Shugden Society (2010) A Great Deception; the Leading Lama's Policies, chapter 9. ISBN 978-0615329246.
• Paul Williams (2009). Mahayana Buddhism: the Doctrinal Foundations, page 164 (2nd edn). Routledge, London & New York. ISBN 9780415356534.
• Eric D. Curren (2006). Buddha’s Not Smiling, Uncovering Corruption at the heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today, page 52. Alaya Press, Staunton VA USA. ISBN 9788120833319.

Some of these books (e.g. Buddha's Not Smiling, on page 52) compound the error further by confusing this small, non-violent rebellion of 1659/60 with the hard-fought Tibetan civil war of 1639-1642, saying the (mis)quotation refers to the Dalai Lama's instruction "in 1660" to send Gushri Khan and his Mongol Army to put down this rebellion in Tsang, which was "still the stronghold of the Karma Kagyu". This statement is absurd, since Gushri Khan had died in 1655, the Karma Kagyu supporters had been defeated by him 13 years earlier and the 'rebels' in this case were just two treasonous Gelugpa officials, who abandoned the fort shortly after the prayer was made, fled to Dam and then to Taglung where they were allowed to remain under the monastery's guarantee and otherwise unpunished.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116143448/http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116143448/http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.bremen.de/info/Nepal/Gallery-3/Misc/12-17/secret-visions-book.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)