Filed under Buddhism
Tagged as #pulpbuddhism
It makes no sense to decry the recognition of children as tulkus while claiming allegence to the 16th or either of the two 17th Karmapa candidates. The 16th Karmapa was a product of and a perptuator of that same system, which is fundamentally flawed. Dress it up how you like with nostalgia, but they were the same then as they are now.
Dear Sir. There is a lot of sense in this. The 17th Karmapa Thrinley Taye Dorje appointed himself as the incarnation of the 16th Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje. So, obviously this is one thing – it is quite another to force a little underage child to move into a monastery and be raised as a Tulku by monks, who know nothing about raising small children. That situation is even more dire, when the child as for instance the Jamgon Rinpoche incarnate, does nor experience himself to be such a incarnation. The labrang – that is the Jamgon Rinpoche organisation – also fails in it’s duties, when they will not support him in his aims as a lay person to become a doctor.
I answer you, because I am the writer of the paper, that you comment upon. Thank you, Lama Tendar Olaf Hoeyer. Check me out on: http://www.tilogaard.dk/english/index.html.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.