Talk:Tulku

Neutrality

Large swathes of the page are being unilaterally merged (without consensus or discussion, with opposition to beat a dead horse) from Western tulku. In particular the Tulku#Criticism and analysis section is being duplicated with irrelevant information on criticism levied against individual Tibetan tulku, not criticism levied against the entire tulku system. This is, quite obviously, intended to give false balance as the author in question has made quite a stink about how Western lamas and their faults simply reflect the faults of [...] the lamas who made them which one can see on the above comment and the AfD proposal on Western tulku.

This should either be replaced by criticism of the tulku system in general, or placed in (a) different section(s)...although the particular personal controversy surrounding individual tulku lineage holders is not really relevant to the tulku system as a whole. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The validity of individual tulku recognitions have been questioned since at least the 4th Dalai Lama. These questionings have always been the result of unexpected behavior, regardless as to whether the tulku was of Tibetan or other descent. These objections to individual tulkus have always included or led to criticism as to whether the system actually works. The lamas who recognized the tulkus are also criticized for these situations. Perhaps read more widely? Skyerise (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the prose reflect that? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you read the sources? Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to how they're being displayed and used on the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice that I explicitly pointed to where they are used as examples in a lengthy discussion of problems with the tulku system at Open Buddhism? Skyerise (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a single sentence followed by several unrelated claims. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The cited article is specifically about failures of the tulku system and gives several well-known examples. These examples are no different than the criticism of Seagal's behavior. They are not "unrelated", the relation that these acts were committed by recognized tulkus is the very theme of the article. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why isn't that reflected in the article? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It is explicitly mentioned. Perhaps you should read it again, more slowly? Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The tulku system has been criticized since its inception. Criticism has also been directed against individual tulkus, including both Tibetan and Western tulkus says nothing about how individual criticism reflects the failure of the tulku system, just that individual tulkus (even the Tibetan ones, guys!) have been criticized. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you're only reading the first paragraph. Stop wasting my time. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Note to self

Don't forget to add the Zhabdrung Rinpoches, as they are mentioned in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Loanword? really?

I know it's not possible to make a perfect distinction between the two, but it seems to me that the word "tulku" is not a loanword, but a foreign word (using "foreign word" as a technical term, not a general one). "Tulku" doesn't have wide use and hasn't been assimilated, at least as far as I'm aware. I think if we asked questions of the people who use this word in an English sentence, we'd see that they normally treat it as a foreign word. (Unlike "pizza", for example, which really is a loan word and no longer regarded as foreign.)

I don't want us to say it's "foreign". I just think it would be smarter to say that tulku is a Tibetan word and leave it at that, without claiming English loanword status for it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)