About titles and pseudo-titles...

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Sometimes I wonder and ponder many things. Today I ponderwonder the following two points.


  1 - While reading many contemporary English language writings about TB, one meets often with the expression "high Lamas". (Usually in plural, as here.) But what does this rhetorical title really mean?

Is there any equivalent in the Tibetan language? No, I would suppose, at least not in actual usage. (If there is, I would really like to hear more about it... Trinlay?)

Is there any doctrinal basis for it in the Vajrayana? No, since as all Lamas are high anyway, there is no point in mentioning the Lama to be high, unless one is making a rhetorical statement that some other Lamas are not-so-high, but since all Lamas are high in any case, the expression expresses nothing.

It of course could be understood to mean that high Lamas are Lamas who are from their own side real Lamas, whereas the mere Lamas are those who are Lamas merely from the practitioner's side; but is there any Tibetan expression that expresses this distinction? Probably not. So what, or who, are these so called high Lamas, and according to what criteria are they high, or higher-that-the-rest? Who are then the implied low Lamas if some are the high Lamas?

The expression "high Lama" seems to be nonsense. Why it is then used? And even by some who I consider to be "high Lamas" themselves?


  2 - While reading many contemporary English language writings about TB, one meets often with the expression "His Holiness" or "His Eminence". But what does these non-Buddhist titles really mean?

They come from Christianity. They have nothing to do with Buddhism. Take a look:
His Holiness
His Eminence

Why do Buddhist practitioners attach to the title "Dalai Lama" a borrowed title "His Holiness", as this title is not a Buddhist one, and especially since even if borrowed to a Buddhist setting, it not applicable to the Dalai Lama, but should be restricted to the leaders of religious orders like Ganden Tripa, Sakya Trizin, et al.


What? Why? Wheresthepoint?    

[harrynephew]

Hi,

I do understand your frustration re this. Maybe I can put in my few cents that might be of help.

It is a fact that from the side of the teacher (Lama) that he is perfect and without flaws. To help us create faith in the minds of those who are immature, a title is added before the Lama's name to glorify the Lama and his sacred works which benefit many.

For example, whenever we mention Trijang Rinpoche, the Tibetans will automatically add 'Kyabje' before Trijang Rinpoche, which means His Holiness(correct me on this as my Tibetan isn't that accurate). It is an honorific title not present in the English syllabus, hence it is borrowed for convenience sake.

hope this helps
HN

[Zhalmed Pawo]

harrynephew yes, it is true that singular Gurus or Lamas are addressed with exclamatory titles (jetsun, rinpoche, kyabje, etc), but I was wondering that what on earth is this general Lama category called "high Lamas".

Kyabje Somebody Dorjechang is a Lama, but who are those high Lamas who seem to be better authorities than specific Lamas? To make this question more concrete, I'll now ask that at what point did a Lama called Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang became a high Lama? Was he a high Lama when he was 2 years old, or at what point of time did this Lama become a high Lama? Was he a high Lama while he lived, or only after? Or indeed, is or was he ever a high Lama? In short: What are the qualifications of being a "high Lama"?

Who are these guys anyway? We hear about them, we read about them, but they seem very elusive. Nobody calls his root Guru a high Lama. The high Lamas seem to be always somewhere else, intangibly hanging out there. Who are they?



I'll thereby proclaim: The whole idea of having high Lamas is just a rhetorical ballyhoo, and therefore totally non-informative labeling. All that the usage of this rhetorical title tells us, is the doctrinal preferences of the speaker. Nothing else. To say that "a certain high Lama did so and so", is to say that "this Lama did something I approve".

Yep.

[LosangKhyentse]

Trijang Rinpoche referred to Pabongka as Lama Dorje Chang. Or Guru Vajradhara. Since Trijang Rinpoche refers to Pabongka as so, it is good enough for me. Trijang Rinpoche's approval is good enough for me.

Zong Rinpoche referred to Trijang Rinpoche as Kyabje Dorje Chang. Or Exalted Vajradhara we can take refuge in. So if Zong Rinpoche's approves of Trijang Rinpoche as so and refers to him as so, it is good enough for me.

Those are just examples that titles are honorific ways to address our teachers. When one great teacher who has benefitted so many refers to another in such an honorific, it is more than okay for us to follow.

Dulzin in trance will refer to Trijang Rinpoche on occassion with many honorific titles also. Dulzin approves of Trijang Rinpoche. It is good enough for me to use those honorific titles following how Dulzin has addresed those lamas, in this case Trijang Rinpoche. If Trijang Rinpoche and Zong Rinpoche will refer to someone with a high title we would be safe to say they are 'lama tsa chenpo' or 'lama chenpo' meaning Very sacred lama or great lama which can be inferred as high lama.

High lama also can refer to their hierarchical positions that they ascended a certain position such as abbots of monasteries, sharpa choeje, jangtse choeje, gaden tripa, tutor to the Dalai Lamas/Panchen lamas, or regents of Tibet, etc. Then they are called high lamas when they ascend to those high positions. So when their incarnations return, they are called High lama incarnations from the time of recognition.

In 50 verses of Guru Devotion by Ashvagosha, it mentions we should not refer to our lama by simply his name, but with something honorific attached in front of the name.

tk

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Yes yes yes tk, when addressing a specific person, these traditional honorific titles are used.

But I was not talking about that. (As one might notice, if one would read what I wrote.)

Trijang Dorjechang did not call his root-Guru a "high Lama". This expression is Western. Just like "His Holiness".

See...?

[LosangKhyentse]

Dear Zhalmed,

Sorry for irritating you and making you become unhappy in your posts.

Folded hands,

tk

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Dear Zhalmed,

Sorry for irritating you and making you become unhappy in your posts.

Folded hands,

tk

Oh,    your words were a most unexpected act of kindness.  Thanks. Cool. 

But do not worry, because I irritate myself. Whatever irritationings I have today made, they are solely on my own account. So please, do not feel sorry. (To tell a truth, I sometimes irritate myself purposefully, because otherwise there won't be any new ideas or new perspectives inside me, and when it comes to discussion within Sangha, the only way to get people to think is to 'challenge' them, sometimes forcefully.) Hmmm. Interesting.

But let us continue. In our practice of JT's Dharma, as protected by DS.

And thank you for your kind words. A rare phenomenon, these days, I must say. Way cool.

[LosangKhyentse]

But let us continue. In our practice of JT's Dharma, as protected by DS.

Dear Zhalmed,

Yes! let's do exactly what you just said!  Thank you!

TK

[LosangKhyentse]

Dear TK, Sorry for answering here your last message addressed to me, I don´t even know where to find it since the rythm of posts has been so intense in the last hours.
Just to tell you that of course I would like to share with you a cup of tea and have a good laugh. I thank you for your sympathy, but when I spoke of shame I didn´t mean that I suffered any personal shame myself, on the contrary, I´ve always felt very happy and saintly "proud" of belonging to this holy lineage; rather that one experiences a type of shame for the person who does something wrong, particularly if one has to speak about it.
I realize that I don´t have a relaxed attitude when I see Dharma being destroyed. And for me there's no way to help in any way anybody who is destroying Dharma, let alone finding justifications that make things worse, confusing innocent people about the most basic of the Buddha´s actions, which is to show beings what to keep and what to abandon.
No matter what, I do understand the reasons others might have for doing what you and the Noobs are doing: to twist Dharma principles to justify the Dalai Lama´s actions. I understand the reasons, particularly in your case and the case of Tibetans, I understand that you want to preserve the icon of your identity as a nation.
We Westerners have an old way of dealing with these type of things: we distinguish between attacking a tenet, an action, an attitude, and attacking a person. We don´t favor attacking the person, it´s called to go "ad hominem", to go against the human being. But we do retain the right to not agreeing and to attacking the actions. Difficult, but I find it quite wise.
Obviously many people do not act according to this pattern, thus the Noobs preaching against our supposed hatred against the Dalai Lama. Or some people actually expressing hatred against him. For the most part, the people in this website do not hate the Dalai Lama but do not agree with his actions. And his actions entailing the persecution of others, well, we have not only the right but the moral obligation to help the persecuted.
So we find it quite strange that a bunch of self proclaimed practitioners of the Protector come here as a group and try to destroy our actions aimed to protect the victims of the Dalai Lama. We might try to understand their intentions and even accept that they might be good intentions. But we disagree with their purpose.
This having been said, it´s clear that there is no debate possible. I don´t see in the new people (I think Noobs is short for newbies) the slightest intention of having a debate. A debate follows the path of reasoning. They are following, according to what Ensapa said, the instructions of a Lama. The path of faith in this case seems to preclude reasoning. So there is no way we can debate. 
I have great appreciation for your kindness, TK. Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear A Friend,

I fold my hands to you and I thank you for your beautiful message which I appreciate and it has touched my heart deeply.

Let me make some things clear to you please:

1. You have every right to be angry with the tenants and policies of the Dalai lama. What happened is very painful and very shocking. It hurts me too. I believe in the prophecy of Trijang Rinpoche that Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden are working hand in hand, but that DOES NOT MEAN I DON'T FEEL DISTRESSED, IN PAIN, HAVE ANGUISH, CONFUSED AND FEEL ISOLATED. I know Dorje Shugden is a Bodhisattva and his strength not to retaliate is what shows me who he is. My faith in him grows even more.  I feel everything you and everyone else feels because I am just an ordinary person who met the Dharma and trying my best to practice.

2. You have every right to express your views and I do read them and contemplate it very much. I don't think negatively of your views nor feel bad about reading them. I do not judge your views, but take intense interest to learn more.

3. Other ppl on this forum are feeling what you feel is perfectly natural and alright. I pray that this horrible ban can be changed or just disappear. All of you/us do not deserve this.

4. I have no ill feelings towards you and other ppl who express their anger toward Dalai Lama. I understand deeply how you feel. Betrayal.

5.I am not on this forum to in ANY WAY INSULT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. Why? Because we are the same lineage, same practice, same lamas, same protector. I am on your side. I have always been on your side and will remain that way. We have the same purpose.

6. I am not posting things to justify what the Dalai lama is doing. I am offering another view to perhaps help heal the pain, betrayal and disappointment. My posts are not meant to counter you or others who feel like you in any way. I do not wish to further the hurt you, or berate you or put your feelings down. You do not deserve that for all that you have gone through. Dharma is not easy in the world today to practice.

7. Whatever I post is not following the instructions of my lamas, but from my own dedication to my lamas and Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden has helped me so much. I have many stories. It disturbs me deeply when Bodhisattvas like Pabongka, Trijang, Gangchen, Yongyal, Gonsar, Zong, Zemey, Dagom Rinpoches and other great beings are dragged through the dirt. I do not approve of that at all. I will counter that at every stop, but in a way that makes the anti-shugden ppl's minds calm down also in the end or die trying.

8. I will follow all of you in any way except the slander of the Dalai lama. Why? Dorje Shugden in trance through the oracles have advised us not to do so. It is on that reason and that reason alone I will not. I love Dorje Shugden tremendously. I can give my life for him if need be. So I will follow his instructions as long as I breathe. That is my reason and that is ok for me. I do not speak for anyone else because there are many factors involved, I understand.

9. I salute you and the others' strength, tenacity, stability, and perserverance in the Dharma during these difficult times. I fold my hands and bow to you and all of you humbly. Please never stop working, foruming, posting, writing, speaking for the cause of Dorje Shugden. He will prevail by the power of truth, karma and resultant karma in the near future. We will not be like the poor israelites who wandered in the Sinai desert for many more decades after recieving the covenant (ten commandments) from Moses on Mt Sinai.

10. I understand completely that you are distinguishing between attacking a tenant, an action, an attitude and the person. I understand you are attacking the actions. I fully understand and MAY I PLEASE SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THAT VERY VERY VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU AND ALL THE OTHERS. Really thank you.


Please forgive me if I have offended you of which I have no intention to from the beginning. I very much look forward to the forum daily/or as much as possible although I do have a busy schedule, but doing the forum is like doing my sadhanas/commitments daily. I feel something is missing if I don't.

I look forward to meeting all of you on the forum for many years into the future and learn so much from all your posts daily.

I truly feel indebted to all of you to spend so much time for our cause.

A friend, again, I would like to thank you for your beautiful post to me. I understand what you have written and appreciate it. Please keep in mind, whatever I will further write in the future is NEVER TO ATTACK YOU OR ANYONE, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT. It is not to attack your work nor put you or anyone down. I cannot do such a thing. It is beyond me.

I will write in my style for berating of Dorje Shugden to stop with my views and you will write for the same reasons with your views. Both our views are necessary as the audience is vast. Minds are attracted to different styles and approaches. You are not wrong. Your intent is excellent. Your motivation is excellent and your efforts will bear results.

Thank you again, I offer incense, serkym, and a candle to Dorje Shugden for you today. I request Dorje Shugden to bless you further for longer life, further growth and further realizations.


Much sincerity,


Tk

P.S. I will post this at other other threads where we have communicated/and you might visit so you can access it easily.

[Big Uncle]

I think High Lama is an English phrase to denote teachers who are popularly considered with 'high attainments' which usually also mean a line of illustrious previous incarnations. However, the Lama whom we take refuge in does not necessarily means that he has high attainments himself but it it our practice of pure view to consider him a Buddha for our own attainments to arise.

I hope that this small explanation helps a little bit.
 

[WisdomBeing]

Further to what has been said, re the Lamas who deserve the title of High Lamas - it's not that they want the titles or need them. Far from it, but it is simply their students who see them as 'High Lamas' because they have been recognised as having attainments from previous or their current lives.

Reincarnated masters are seen as 'high lamas' as opposed to those who are not - not that those who do not have reincarnate recognition are lesser but it's just the system of recognition in place.

Does this make sense?

[thor]

Was high lama a termed coined by Western practitioners to denote the difference between the lower and higher reincarnations? A born-and-bred Tibetan would find it easy to make sense of the confusing world of  lamas, kyabjes, tulkus, kensurs, trisurs etc. But for the non-initiated (like me), it took a while before I realised that a Rinpoche does not necessarily denote a recognised reincarnation. The title of high lama would help to differentiate between those with a long line of reincarnations and a new Rinpoche. Of course this system is somewhat subjective and open to abuse by the user.

As for H.H. and H.E., only the Dalai Lama, leaders of religious orders, and the Dalai Lama's tutors have the title of H.H. Others are H.E. The one exception to this rule appears to be Kyabje Zong Rinpoche who is commonly referred to as H.H. as well.

[WisdomBeing]

Was high lama a termed coined by Western practitioners to denote the difference between the lower and higher reincarnations? A born-and-bred Tibetan would find it easy to make sense of the confusing world of  lamas, kyabjes, tulkus, kensurs, trisurs etc. But for the non-initiated (like me), it took a while before I realised that a Rinpoche does not necessarily denote a recognised reincarnation. The title of high lama would help to differentiate between those with a long line of reincarnations and a new Rinpoche. Of course this system is somewhat subjective and open to abuse by the user.

As for H.H. and H.E., only the Dalai Lama, leaders of religious orders, and the Dalai Lama's tutors have the title of H.H. Others are H.E. The one exception to this rule appears to be Kyabje Zong Rinpoche who is commonly referred to as H.H. as well.

Dulzin,

You're so right! It took me a long time to figure out this high lama thing. I'm still not clear what is an 'incarnate lama' and a 'reincarnate lama'. Is there a difference?

For me, the way to differentiate the real Rinpoche and the bogus ones would be who recognised the Rinpoche. I know some 'teachers' give themselves the title of Rinpoche! That's a bit much i think. If the Rinpoche is associated to a monastery would also be a good guideline of his status.

Cheers
Kate

[dsnowlion]

Yes it's so true and hard sometimes to explain to people who are new to "Vajrayana" Buddhism as I've had a freind asking me the same question Zhalmed Pawo. I had a guy who just totally dis this whole title need, asking why do we need to address our Gurus and His Eminence.I gave them the same reasoning as Wisdom Being for it will be too long to explain or difficult for them to understand the whole thing about incarnate and reincarnate Lamas base on what they believe at that point of time.

Anyways it's interesting to see the different angles and ways all of you have explained that I could use when this topic arises again with newbies or non Buddhist.

Thank You all!

[WisdomBeing]

Hey I just became a Junior Member on this forum - kewl.... ok i shouldn't get excited over titles and pseudo-titles