Tulku's accomplishment

[spiritnoname]

1. a. Given the same conditions I wouldn't be surprised if some normal people produced similar results, but that's not really the point of my argument, my point was that not all tulku's are born highly attained.
    b. That they can begin their studies later in life and still gain attainments does not show that they are not ordinary beings, as that's possible for ordinary beings.
    c. Ordinary people are capable of taking responsibility for others, mothers do it all the time.
    d. I didn't say the tulku system was a scam, the point of my statements was to debate the idea that tulkus are the equivalent to the Christian God, spiritually the greatest, omnipotent, and beyond reproach.

2. Actually that is not what my statement says, my statement says that there are at least some factors they cannot control, which can be easily deduced by the fact that no tulku has lived forever or anywhere close, which I think they would because starting off as a little kid again is a lot of work and a lot of wasted time.
     
3. I don't like the idea of encouraging people to pass judgment on others when they don't even know what's going on, which is a favorite pass time of a lot of seriously messed up spiritual aspirants, but what is equally messed up, and usually employed by the same people, is blind faith. Blind faith being something that can have a little value if you're lucky(1 in a million if that), but is extremely dangerous and can actually mess up relationships with great legitimate teachers when you realize they don't fit your warped view of them. Do you think HHDL or HETTR would teach otherwise?

 

[greasypalm]

I am going to come in from a different angle.  As quoted from Geshe Lama Konchog a highly revered Kadampa Master (who has been reincarnated as Tenzin Phuntsok Rinpoche and recognised by HH Dalai Lama in the not too distant past):

"If we could actually see the Buddhas and take teachings directly, we do not need to go for refuge with Lamas or Gurus. Unfortunately, the time for us to be able to see the Buddhas have passed.

When we talk about the guru appearing in ordinary form, it means that ordinary form may show aspects of possessing a deluded mind, of being sick, of old age. All these ordinary things happen to him. The guru needs to show this kind of form, otherwise there would be no point appearig in the form of ordinariness.

From the practitioners' point they should generate the thought that although the guru has an ordinary appearance, in reality he is Shakyamuni Buddha. If they are able to do this, they will receive all the benefits of having seen the Buddha. If they are able to recognise and see the ordinary guru in the form of 'Action' Buddhas that will leave imprints on their mind for the future. It will give cause to have direct contact with the Buddhas and be able to receive teachings directly from them.

From the gurus' side, whether they are actually a Buddha or not is not the point.  The point is from the practitioners' side to see him in the nature of the Buddha. That is what is important.

If the practitioners are unable to see the guru in this way and can only see him as an ordinary person - maybe from one point of view, they have no choice. MAYBE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF GURU DEVOTION"     

And quoting from Ven. Dr K Sri Dhammanada:

"The Buddha was not interested in the development of 'faith' in an absolute eense although it can be useful in the preliminary stages of one's religious development. The danger of relying on faith alone without analytical knowledge i that it can make us into religious fanatics. Those who allow faith to crystallise in thier minds cannot see other people's point of view because they have already established in thier minds what they believe is alone the truth.  The Buddha insisted that one must not accept even His own Teachings on the basis of faith alone. One must gain knowledge and then develop understanding through study, discussion, meditation and finally contemplation.
 
Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another. If there is understanding, one can adjust one'slife according to changing circumstances based on knowledge one has.  We may met learned people sho know many things but are not realistic because their egoism, their selfishness, tier anger, their hatred do not allow them to gain unbiased mental attitudes and peace of mind.

When it is necessary to COMPROMISE, we must know how to COMPROMISE. Whe it is necessary to tolerate, we must know how to tolerate. When it is necessary to stand firm, we must stand firm with dignity"

In this regard, I dare say that highly practitioners have gone though the motions of learning, meditating and contemplating as prescribed by Lord Buddha and we ordinary beings can  certainly ask questions to find the anwers. But when we are still in doubt, we must ask ourselves - whose answer is more reliable, ourselves or the highly attained? If we think the anwer is ourselves, then we don't need any Gurus or Tulkus.

[spiritnoname]

 There's a difference between viewing your guru as such from your side and thinking they are such from their own side.

 For instance, I can look into empty space and see Buddhas, I can visualize Buddhas right in front of me, this is my view, it is operable for attaining my goals to see this way. But what if I think that these Buddhas are there from their own side? Maybe karmas come up that distort my visualization and then I see the deity become a threatening monster, if I see these images as being there from their own side as I see them then I am going to get disturbed, I'm not going to recognize this as just a simple problem with my view that requires a little correction, I might not want to have anything to do with that deity again. 

 Now what happens if you view all tulkus this way and think they are like that from their own side? Exactly, your spiritual life is going to hit some extreme turbulence when you realize you've been holding distorted views and basing all your faith on them.

 Now what puzzles me is why you guys would think you should have this view of guru devotion to all tulkus. I don't see why any of you should rightly have guru devotion to anyone but those that have taught you particular things. You're really setting yourselves up for troubles.
 
 I thought it was common knowledge not to take refuge, teachings, or put faith in tulkus until they've proven themselves in their present life. 

[greasypalm]

Practice is from your side - it really doesn't matter what or who you visualise.  If you have visions - like Lama Tsong Khapa did - well done. How do you deal with these visions?  There are practices to check out the authenticty of these visions.

Guru Devotion in a strict sense is your own practice after you hae received teachings and guidance from our Lama.

No one purports to show guru devotion to all tulkus. But if you understand the practice well, the 3 statements you proposed originally should be studied very carefully. Once again - I would say it is down to your own practice.  I don't know how many tulkus you know (I assume they are recognised by Eminent Masters),and whether you have checked them out as possibilities to be your gurus, but if you based your statements on them - there is a danger you are setting yourselve up for trouble.  You may not have affinity to them in a guru/student relationship in this life.  Are you also so certain they will benefit no one or have not benefitted anyone?

You rightly said one need to check one's techer before taking refuge.  If  there is no affnity with a particular teacher, it does not make the teacher wrong.  The main point is for the practitioners develop and generate a pure vision for himself alone.  It is not his responsibility to check with others whether they are having pure visions or not.  And if I am not mistaken, in the book "Dangerous Friend: The Teacher-Student Relationship in Vajrayana Buddhism" by Rig'dzin Dorje - he said that practitioners who practice well can gain attainments even if their teachers turn out to be false. 

But if you still consider your 3 statements to be valid - then I think we have to agree to disagree and I hope the readers of this forum can make their minds up based on all the views and opinions expressed here. 

[spiritnoname]

 Greasy this debate is about what tulku's are from their own side, not how you view your teacher for tantra.

 I wasn't talking about visions, just another type of visualization.

[prettyVYcadillac]

Who are you to be commenting on a Tulku from their own side then?

[spiritnoname]

 Pretty, arguing a person's character instead of their proposition is called ad hominem and it's a logical fallacy.

[Hot Spot]

I think we should draw a line to this debate topic.  It should not be about debating skills or character bashing but good 'bantering' to take in one anothers's stand on a particular topic and perhaps a platform for contemplation.  Some views may be agreeable whilst others are not.

It should not be about 'winning' too.  There is no judge here.  So an eloquent debater may not necessarily be giving the 'correc't view from a buddhist point of view. I would caution the readers to check on the facts or contemplate on the points put forth by the various contributors.

So some would view the accomplishments of a Tulku based on conventional truth whilst others on the absolute truth.  And for many who are still in the early stages of their spiritual path, they rely on the words of their teachers and the teachers before them. 


 

 

[spiritnoname]

 I actually don't know of any teachings that contradict my statements. Maybe someone could get some references?

[uriumesir]

with regard to spiritnoname questions on whether tulku can control life or death at will or experience suffering or not i will like to bring out the points whether the buddha or tulku can control their lifespan not only depend on their accomplishment or karma but also the collective karma of the sentimental beings, hence buddha does not exist in this time is mainly because the collective karma of the people in this age but his other bodies do exist in other worlds.

Next whether tulku experience suffering is dependence on their level of attainment (which Bhumi they are in etc) and I agree that not all tulku are born a high bhumi bodhisattva, hence before total liberation that is reaching buddhahood all will experience some forms of suffering but if their mind are not affect by the environment then at least their mind are free of suffering. A good example will be some lama who experience immense suffering but still remain happy and free of mental pains.