User talk:CFynn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Propose a merger if you wish[edit]

Propose a merger if you wish. The new article can simply be called "Shugden".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Please see Prasangika37 here and here on the book Heart Jewel.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:David Germano (August 4)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

Anastasia (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! CFynn, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Wiktionary[edit]

Hi Chris, just a kind reminder that you have a new message at wikt:User talk:Wyang#Dzongkha (རྫོང་ཁ) data. Thanks, Wyang (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

1989 Mumford[edit]

According to Mumford in 1989, Dorje Shugden is "held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: This is true - many Tibetans fear to even mention his name. But at the same time, even Tibetans opposed to the practice still believe he is very powerful for gaining wealth, power, success in business, success in monastic debate, etc. Anyway there are a variety of views that should all be fairly represented in the article, if there is a verifiable source. The view that DS is completely harmless because he is a "Wisdom Buddha" seems unique to the NKT though. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Also I read that in old Tibet, even the "priest" of Dolgyal would be trembling and scared. I think this may be from Bultrini's book. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thank you. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sakya Pandita[edit]

In the Sakya Pandita article, should we say Shugden is his rebirth? According to Dreyfus, Shugden predates Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thus the 2 only became related in later "terma".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Of course there is no real need in the Sakya Pandita article. But Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's alleged rivalry with the 5th and the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and whether Shugden is, or is not, his rebirth is absolutely central to both the current Dalai Lama's usual account and the Phabogkha-Trijang-Kelsang Gyatso account of Shugden — and so belongs in an article on Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (and is perhaps one of the main reasons he is still significant). Of course I'll add something to the effect that others say that Shugden pre-dates Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (I can't write everything at once though). I think is important that historically there have been several conflicting views and the view that Shugden is a rebirth of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen is only one of these, and not a universally accepted account. The fact that there was a continuing incarnation lineage after Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen is also evidence that this was not accepted by all. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Shugden is also the rebirth of Virupa.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Well at least according to the latter day re-envisioning of Shugden by Phabongkha. Of course there is no "proof" that anybody or any entity is the rebirth of another - as I pointed out elsewhere the whole idea is regarded by most Buddhist scholars as a conceptual fiction - but perhaps one can't expect people who actually believe in entities like Shugden to understand that. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson, Joshua Jonathan: BTW Have either of you yet read Samten Karmay's new book "The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama"? I should think this is likely to clarify a number of things about the Fifth's relationship with Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and the emergence of Shugden. I know Christopher Bell is also currently doing more research on the early history of Shugden which should prove interesting. There is also a paper by on Shugden by E. Gene Smith that has never been published - but I'm sure will eventually see the light of day. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Germano has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
David Germano, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Watt has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Jeff Watt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your onerous intro[edit]

The three 37's put your long onerous intro into the article. Don't you think its full of unsubstantiated allegations like "ban" etc.? Monasteries are private intuitions, just like NKT centers. And the Dalai Lama does not control the government of India. JJ's intro was based on the academic POV, not the NKT POV. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

About the Advisor shares article and the COI noticeboard[edit]

Thank you very much for responding to my inquiry. I found out about Advisor shares after I read in the news about Phillipe Cousteau Jr. coming to Iceland to film a TV and looked up Phillipe Cousteau's Wikipedia page. UserNameUnderConstruction, the one who I suspect is an employee of Advisor Shares, deleted some information in the section about AdvisorShares and Phillipe Cousteau's partnership. I noticed that this user deleted similar stuff everywhere. I looked at what he was deleting and it was based on reliable legal documents and news article sources. However, the company would have reason to want to hide this because the court cases make the CEO look bad. It seems that UserNameUnderConstruction is edit warring with everyone who tells the truth about what is possibly his company and trying to get them banned from Wikipedia. I don't know how to check his IP address to see if he is a socket puppet, like the comment you responded to alleged.

Just wanted to let you know so that someone else could look into this as well. If it is someone from the company editing away this stuff, I find them to be hypocrites because the company launch a socially responsible investing fund with Phillipe Cousteau and because they claim on their website that one of their main 3 values is transparency. All help in stopping these people from hiding the truth would be really appreciated.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

Can you archive this page, except for the latest section?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The archiving is not right.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Auto archiving may take a few days to work. I think the archiving bots slowly trawl through all of Wikipedia. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, CFynn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this?[edit]

Heya Chris. Meant to say on the DS talk page, I don't mean to be antagonistic about the discussion about the expulsion stuff. I really just want to deal with on issue at a time there and its very distracting to take the discussion in different directions. Happy to talk about it here, on my talk page, as a separate issue there, or whatever :) Anyway, I am really curious what you think about this. Hadn't seen this video before and I am pretty confused about what the Dalai Lama is saying between minute 14 to minute 17. Any clarification? @VictoriaGrayson: What do you think about it too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUedS5qlWUE . He is talking about whether he is the reincarnation of the 13th DL or not. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Are you one of those people who thinks tulkus are the rebirth of the previous person? Tulkus aren't the rebirth of the previous person. For example, there are bardo procedures for anyone to be reborn as a tulku.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37, VictoriaGrayson: "Rebirth," like "person" is regarded by most Buddhists scholars as a conceptual fiction, a term of convenience superimposed upon a series of causally connected, transitory, impersonal dharmas. This has been the standard position since at least as early as the Questions of Milinda. So Nagasena says to Milinda that the consciousness that is aware of the ripening of a karma is neither identical to nor entirely different from the consciousness that had the karma in the form of the intention to do something. It is not identical, because the awareness-of-ripening has different features from the awareness-of-intention. But it is not entirely different, because the later awareness is causally connected to the earlier awareness.

Vasubandhu's work on abhidharma makes is clear that the idea of rebirth holds weight only as long as the concept of person is taken seriously, because rebirth is essentially a personal category, whereas the actual causal process is entirely impersonal.

In the video the DL talks about being the one who has the qualities and potential to carry out the tasks begun by, and the intentions of, the previous Dalai Lamas. In other words, he is the one who has the causes and conditions to fulfil the actions and intentions of the previous Dalai Lamas.

A problem is western concepts of "soul" inevitably get superimposed when people talk or think about things like Buddhist "rebirth" as we have been programmed to think that way, and the words in our western languages have all those associations. Much clearer when these things are explained in Tibetan - the Dalai Lama is also much clearer when he speaks in Tibetan. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I think its clear that soul doesn't work here. But he makes a distinction between the second and the first Dalai Lama, no? He says that they have a connection, but he does not. Thus implying his awareness is not causally connected to the previous Dalai Lamas. Its my understanding that this is the general approach to a 'Tulku' and that he is saying that is what he is not. Also, whats the point of the Tulku identification system if its not the same mental continuum? E.g. identifying the bell, vajra, mala, of the previous incarnation...or having someone who is close to them identify them? Or is it just the Dalai Lama's that aren't like this? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prasangika37:It is extremely rare that a tulku is the actual rebirth of the predecessor. You are trying to pick those rare cases. There are procedures for anyone to be reborn as a tulku including you. The picking of the objects is a Gelug thing and purely ritualistic. Does it make sense for rainbow body displayers to be reborn? Of course not. And yet there are tulkus of Dudjom Rinpoche.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that was a common understanding. Most of the reading I have done in the past, other than quotes from the Dalai Lama, imply otherwise. Things like predicting one's own rebirth, etc. Interesting. Anyway, thanks for the point of view. Its a new one to me! :) CFynn is this your understanding too, or are you taking more of the 'the Dalai Lama means that there isn't an inherently existent person being reborn' type line? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Also @VictoriaGrayson:, the point about the rainbow body seems a bit faulty, but it depends on your understanding of the bodies of a Buddha. To my understanding, someone who had attained that state could still emanate bodies, and thus be 'reborn'. The rebirth would just be the emanation. That is why they would attain the rainbow body in the first place! Prasangika37 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prasangika37: So you believe the Dudjom tulkus are fully enlightened emanations? VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: I don't know they are, honestly nor have I ever heard of them. The point is is that a being who had actually attained the Rainbow Body would be able to emanate other bodies, and therefore 'come back'. This is my understanding. I dont know if the person you're mentioning attained the Rainbow body or not and if he did, if his emanations are recognized as these Tulkus or if they have emanated in other ways. This is because it seems the Tulku system has flaws and can be easily politically motivated and altered/influenced. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prasangika37:See this. Anyone can be reborn as a tulku.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)