Tulku's accomplishment

[spiritnoname]

 I propose that not all tulkus are born highly attained.
 I propose no tulkus have full control over their death.
 I propose tulkus can make mistakes and harm themselves and others.

[Hot Spot]

Although not all Tulkus are enlightened beings, they are at least advanced practitioners of the highest class of tantra hence, are in control over their death and rebirth.

Tulku reincarnate start from birth like anyone else but they carry with them the strong imprints of practice from past life which explains their incredulous journey in present life. The training they receive this life serves as a refreshers course. Besides, like Lord Buddha, they are here to show the lay people that they (the lay people) also have such potentials to achieving the highest training.

"Tulkus making mistakes or harming themselves and others" - this is just from the perceivers' point of view.  Many such tulkus practice what is commonly known as "Crazy Wisdom". Their actions serves to bring certain groups of people to dharma. A example of such a tulku was the late HE Chugyam Trugpa.  The samsaric perceivers will always make wrong projections on other's actions, including those of high practitioners. So it is dangerous for lay practitioners who are not highly attained, commenting on the actions of an attained being.   

[spiritnoname]

 If tulku's had full control over their death they could postpone it indefinitely.
   Have you ever heard of a tulku living for over 200 years even?
   Since they cannot postpone death indefinitely that means there are factors contributing to death that they do not have control over.
   Therefore they do not have full control over their death.

 If all tulku's are highly attained then they would not suffer.
   How then can tulkus suffer?
   Since they can suffer, they are not all born highly attained.
   Therefore not all tulkus are highly attained.

 If tulkus cannot make mistakes and harm themselves and others then tulkus would never have a cause for regret.
   How then can tulkus have regret?
   Since tulkus can have regret, they can make mistakes and harm themselves and others.
   Therefore tulkus can make mistakes and harm themselves and others.

[Hot Spot]

Tulkus emanates in worldly bodies to benefit worldly beings, and worldly bodies do have 'sell by date'
If Tulkus do not emanate in worldly form, no worldly beings will be able to benefit unless they (the worldly beings) are highly attained individuals (the story of Asanga trying desperately to look for Maitreya for over 12 years) Also note that Lord Buddha who has attained enlightenment also died in his 80's. So why did he not live forever? To show the concept of impermanence.

Again, a tulku manifest to show worldly beings that this samsaric existence is a suffering one. Are they truly suffering? I doubt it. How do you define tulku suffering? If based on conventional truth, it must be faulty.

Same point as aforementioned. It is based on your perception (which is based on conventional truth rather than absolute truth). Unless you are a tulku, how do you know a tulku regrets?

If  reincarnated highly attained beings are not subject to samsaric pains it will be pretty much difficult to convince samsaric beings they can follow a path to enlightenment.  If Lord Buddha did not chose to be born to worldly parents, how then can worldly beings have enough merit to see him, receive his blessings and teachings?  And until we become highly attained, we should reserve our judgement on the highly attained. 

[spiritnoname]

If a tulku established in teaching could live to 200 they would and they still would show impermanence.
  Do you know of any tulkus who have lived to the age of 200?
  Since we know of no tulkus that lived to the age of 200 we can assume they do not have full control over their death.
  Therefore tulkus do not have full control over their death.
 
If a tulku had no suffering but displayed suffering they would want us to believe they suffered.
  If this is true, why would we be encouraged to believe they do not suffer?
  Since this would be self defeating, the statement tulkus have no suffering serves only to cause confusion.
  Therefore the statement tulkus have no suffering is not a statement of an enlightened being.
   

[Hot Spot]

Sorry, I don't know of any tulkus who lived to 200 years. Lord Buddha did not live past 100 - I suppose he did not have full control over his death too.

Suffering can be overcome if delusions are eliminated.  Highly attained beings have eliminated delusions. Samsaric beings on the contrary are full of deulsions and hence even justifying the faults of highly attained beings because they do not conform to their 'standard'   

[spiritnoname]

 Buddha Shakyamuni, if I remember the sutta teaching correctly, told Ananda that a Tathagata had the potential to live to the age of 120 years.

 I actually have a tulku friend and sometimes people die, or maybe other troubles, and he does seem to genuinely suffer, not as much as other people I imagine, but he does seem to.

 

[Hot Spot]

So if the Tathagatha has a potential to live to age 120 years, why then do you think a tulku has to show he can live to 200 years to prove he is in control of his death?

My Lama feels sad too when he hears of people dying or his own gurus passing into clear light. He feels concern for his students when they are diagnosed with terminal illness.  That is not suffering.  Suffering is when he has mental afflictive emotions which I do not believe my Lama has.

[spiritnoname]

 I wasn't making the point that people can't have some control over the time of their death, people can make things such that they live longer or shorter, but I know of no one who can avoid death, it's impossible according to the Buddha's teachings because the human life is comprised of conditions that come together and therefore come apart, and on top of that they are impermanent.

 My tulku friend has been bothered by other things than death.

 I don't understand how that isn't suffering.

[Hot Spot]

You hit the nail on the head - no one can avoid death (ie samsaric death) and highly attained individuals are not excepted but they can control their death, when they die within the limitations of samsaric existence. Highly attained individuals and meditate can go into clear light when they feel the time is  right for them or through the karmic obscurations of his followers.

As to the suffering of your tulku friend, I am unable to comment unless you can elaborate a litte.  But I wish to add:

Avalokiteshvara felt he was unable to overcome the suffering of all sentient beings in spite of his infinite compassion and began to cry.  Is this suffering as you see it? If so, all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are suffering and indeed our Lamas and all Tulkus are suffering.  Then what is the point of following the Path if no one is able to be released from suffering?

[spiritnoname]

Hmm,...

  I wonder if it would be good to teach a formal debating style.

   I think you've agreed with the idea that tulkus do not have full control over their death, right?

   I missed one point before, you asked, " unless you're a tulku how do you know a tulku regrets?".
   By that logical inference I could say, " if you're not a tulku, how do you know a tulku is not actually a monster in disguise waiting for the right time to eat people's guts?".
   It's not actually a valid point, if we were to find that as evidence for how things are then you might throw a rock at someone's head because unless you're a rock you don't know if a rock is really a balloon in disguise, and when the person is crying in pain they're really just happy because they love balloons.


 One thing you can do with debating is disagree with a statement someone made or ask them to explain how they got the conclusion from their statements.


  I don't know what was going on in the Avalokiteshvara story, but if Avalokitesvhara was suffering, then he was suffering. Crying doesn't necessarily indicate suffering though.
 
 Texts may not be the best thing to quote in debate unless it's a debate on texts. The reason is because the texts themselves are able to be debated and it could lead to a really long tangent in a debate that still requires the point to be proven somehow. Probably even right now there are wackos making up their own Buddhist sutras and hoping to spring them on the world, so just because it's written doesn't mean it's true. There are definitely fake sutras, and to say so is not breaking any vows that I'm aware of since fake sutras are not the Buddha's teachings.

[Hot Spot]

No one can avoid death does not equate to tulkus cannot control death.  Within the samsaric realm, tulkus do and can control their death. 

I may not be a tulku but I can check a tulku by his lineage, from his recognition by learned masters.  Or by his teachings (if he teaches) - which are based on compassion.  But your analogy with rock throwing is rather bewildering.  I am not following. 

As regards Avalokiteshvara's feelings for sentient beings - this is well known in the Buddhist world.   In some ways that is bothering Avalokiteshvara, like you said something is bothering your tulku friend.  Hence based on your argument Avalokiteshvara is suffering? My point is how can a Buddha/Bodhisattva be suffering? This is against the Buddhist belief that a Buddha does not suffer.

Your original 3 statements were:
Not all Tulkus are born highly attained
No tulkus can control their death
Tulkus can make mistakes and harm themselves and others

I refute each of those statements
Tulkus are recognised by someone of authority, power, eminence and spiritual background
Tulkus who are dying have been known to extend their life by request of their own Gurus
Unless we meditated and understood emptiness (and be cleared of delusions), we are in no position to comment on the actions of tulkus




 

[spiritnoname]

 
In order to refute something  you have to show that the supporting evidence or the conclusion of my argument are untrue.

 The original statements were:
 1. I propose that not all tulkus are born highly attained.
 2. I propose no tulkus have full control over their death.
 3. I propose tulkus can make mistakes and harm themselves and others.


   

  1.The problem with the Avalokitesvhara story is that it's up for debate, so you're going to have to prove somehow that this really happened and what not and I don't know how you're going to do that. You need to find some better supporting evidence.

  1. My tulku friend, well,.. one of them,.. haha I'm trying to keep this as anonymous as possible, has had girl trouble.

  1. Now I know another tulku, he was recognized as an adult I think, denied that Buddhism acknowledged siddhis. His story's kinda funny, even his name is funny, but I shouldn't say because he is probably doing good things where he is.

 2. Thing have become somewhat muddled but I think you actually you have not successfully refuted that no tulkus have full control over their death, rather you used a strawman argument that is a logical fallacy, which is where instead of debating the original statement you debate something similar that is easier to refute. I don't think you'll actually find any support to saying tulkus have full control over their death.

 3. Fortunately we don't need to judge the tulkus, because they do preliminaries like everyone else right? 100,000 Om Vajrasattva I Regret Nothing?
      Tell me the name of a tulku who said they regret nothing and I'll make them regret that haha.



 
 

[Hot Spot]

Spirit - it has been interesting bantering on this.

No I have no evidence on Avalokiteshvara story (anymore than I have evidence on tulkus controlling their death) but I rely on texts and teachings from my Lama and his Lamas before him.  And also my Lamas personal experiences with great masters who have passed into the clear light.  This is not a cop out.  I have every faith and trust in my Lama.

[prettyVYcadillac]

Hi No Name

Heres my view

1. Born Highly Attained:

- If they are not, a Tulku's spiritual progress using the Buddhas teachings and learning from other reincarnated High Lamas would be the same as normal people such as you or I (unless of course your a Tulku too)
- The fact that they can begin their studies even later in life and still gain attainments shows they are not ordinary beings
- Its not like an ordinary person can progress in learning / spiritual practice at such pace that they can carry on their work from past lives again with soo much responsibility for other peoples lives more than their own.
- I doubt very much its a scam, because real Tulkus benefit soo many people its black n white and open for all to see.

2. Full control over their death

- Its more than just saying how long they will live or when they will die, its also saying where they will take rebirth, in what conditions, and for what purpose. I do not need to experience this myself to see it in place. Take the Dalai Lama for example. What your statement says is that these beings do not have control over how they die or take rebirth which is not logical.
- Its the same premise as the results are similar to the cause. You study you get a degree. You make prayers and causes in a past life to be where you are today. Just as you will make prayers and causes for where you will be in your next life. Make no causes in this life you will get the result, really is just cause and effect.

3. Tulkus can make mistakes and harm themselves and others

- Fake Tulkus, for sure.
- Real Tulkus, who are we to judge or even cause people to judge. To even get to the stage of being called a real Tulku takes many recognitions all the way up to even the Dalai Lama checking authenticity. Its not as simple to be called a Tulku. To say the whole system of Buddhism is wrong is not something i wish to be the one to say openly, this would be a cause for me to not receive what will liberate my mind if not in this life but in future lives.
- Now if we have a real Tulku whom we feel is making mistakes or harm, then really we must check ourselves as it will not

You seem rather disillusioned, or is it just for debate purposes.
Just my thoughts on this subject