Talk:Chögyam Trungpa

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

Why has this been deleted?[edit]


By the late seventies, having established himself as the leading Buddhist teacher in the United States, Chögyam Trungpa began his presentation of the Shambhala teachings, a non-religious meditative path bringing dignity, confidence, and wisdom to every facet of life. He and his Sakyong Wangmo, his queen-consort, would lead the establishment of this enlightened society. [1]

Austerlitz -- (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]

(added -- (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

See WP:APT for some pertinent Wikipedia guidelines. This text reads like promotional literature, not an encyclopedia. The valid point made in this text is already made in the next section. Bertport (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this true?[edit]

What about his reasons for Vajradhatu instead of Dharmadhatu?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

see page three and four: "When Rinpoche sought to name an organization or project, he often would turn to Sanskrit again-examples range from Vajradhatu to Shambala, Nalanda to Naropa (all written without the more scholarly use of diacritics)-though he remained mostly in his native idiom for the names he chose for his military and service organization,.........."

Austerlitz -- (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In my sanskrit dictionary the word vajra does not appear. There is only Vraja.

-- (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly your dictionary is defective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sakyong Wangmo[edit]

  • [2] can this be added somehow?
Austerlitz -- (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


The Golden Sun of the Great East; the Root Text on How to Executre the Ashe of the Changeless Supreme Rigden, the Profound Brilliant Just Powerful All-victorious One , by Dorje Dradül of Mukpo (Hardcover - 2001)

Product Description Shambhala Root Text. This second edition has been re-edited using, where possible, gender-inclusive language. Other amendments have been made based on a re-examination of the original Tibetan manuscript.

35 pages, Publisher: Vajradhatu Publications (2001), ASIN: B00154O998

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't we add a list of translations done by Chögyam Trungpa and his group?,, Maybe it's sufficient to add the last weblink.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Austerlitz -- (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • [3] "Other amendments have been made based on a re-examination of the original Tibetan manuscript. " "the original Tibetan manuscript: that is??????????
Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be an answer: [4]. "Trungpa Rinpoche is believed by his students to have received these teachings directly from Gesar of Ling, an emanation of Padmasambhava, and the Rigden kings[1]. Their terma status was confirmed by the esteemed Nyingma master His Holiness Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche."

Austerlitz -- (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those texts contain both the original Tibetan terma as well as English translation by Rinpoche and the Nalanda Translation Committee. And gender language has been adjusted in more recent translations. They're only given out as part of Shambhala Training weekend programs (and one at the Warriors Assembly two-week long retreat) currently. I think the first one is offered once a student has gone through levels 1-5, then the three weekends called Great Eastern Sun, Windhorse, and Drala. Though I expect the exact sequence might shift somewhat over the next few years. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


-- (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


What about his view? [6]

Austerlitz -- (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chögyam Trungpa about Karma, Pema Chödrön on very old karmic seeds ripening

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephantjournal Readers[edit]

I see that elephantjournal is asking his readers to come edit this page. The public is indeed invited to become part of the cooperative Wikipedia community. There are policies in place that govern what sort of material can be used. Sources must be verifiable. Sources need not be neutral. The article overall should present a balanced, full, properly weighted picture of the subject. Bertport (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently deleted testimony of former students[edit]

It seems that this article has recently come to the attention of Shambhala, and a number of new editors have flocked to the site to delete the following material:

Two former students of Trungpa, John Steinbeck IV (son of novelist John Steinbeck) and his wife, wrote a sharply critical memoir of their lives with him in which they claim that, in addition to his addiction to alcohol, Trungpa had a "$40,000-a-year cocaine habit, along with a penchant for Seconal. . . although his drinking and sexual exploits were never kept secret, his staggering coke habit was well concealed from his students."[2] Among the things they found appalling:

Women were trained as 'consorts.' That meant they knew what to do when he threw up, shit in the bed, snorted coke till dawn, turned his attention to other women and maybe even got in the mood for a threesome. Our little band of recovering Buddhists began to ask people if they thought this flagrant behavior constituted religious or sexual abuse. The standard answer you get from the male good old boys is . . that they never . .heard any woman complain about sleeping with Rinpoche. (I use that term loosely, because for years he was alcoholically impotent and would devise little sexual games such as using a dildo known as 'Mr. Happy' or insisting women masturbate in front of him.) . . . Many women, who felt they were no more than chattel, silently left the scene.[3]

Another former student, Stephen Butterfield, noted that "Trungpa told us that if we ever tried to leave the Vajrayana, we would suffer unbearable, subtle, continuous anguish, and disasters would pursue us like furies . . . doubting the dharma and associating with heretics were causes for downfall . . .if this was the consequence of merely leaving the organization, what supernal wrath might be visting upon me for publicly question or discussing my experience of it?"[4] Butterfield noted the "disquieting resemblances" to cults, noting "to be part of Trungpa's inner circle, you had to take a vow never to reveal or even discuss some of the things he did. This personal secrecy is common with gurus, especially in Vajrayana Buddhism. It is also common in the dysfunctional family systems of alcoholics and sexual abusers. This inner circle secrecy puts up an almost insurmountable barrier to a healthily skeptical mind."[5] Nonetheless, he ultimately concluded about his experience of Trungpa's organization, "a mere cult leaves you disgusted and disillusioned, wondering how you could have been a fool. I did not feel that charlatans had hoodwinked me into giving up my powers to enhance theirs. On the contrary, mine were unveiled."[6]

It seems to me that the only rationale for deleting this material is that it makes Chogyam Trungpa look bad. Both of these eyewitness accounts are from published books that certainly meet the reliable source standards. There is nothing that says quotations and opinions cannot be included on wikipedia, provided they are clearly identified as originating with the authors of reliable sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the attacks were instigated by a fellow who is sort of a Buddhist Rush Limbaugh. The main points of the material are relevant and important, and meet WP standards too, as you say. But maybe the presentation here was unnecessarily inflammatory. I think that the article in its present state still captures the essentials and allows the interested reader to track down the sources for more. Do you think something needs to be restored? Bertport (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is our place to judge whether or not "inflammatoriness" is "necessary." Better to let the critics have their own voices. Also, one major point that has been removed from the article as it now stands is that the "party line" on Chogyam Trungpa is that he was always totally open about his vices. But Steinbeck claims that his coke use was top secret. So that has been edited out.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point about the secrecy vs. the party line. I don't mind if you put stuff back in to the article. It might be a good idea to get Haiduc's opinion on the content, since he's the other good-faith editor who's been editing the material recently. Bertport (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Good idea - we can let this stand for comment for a couple of days and take it from there.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to make a distinction between material that reads like reported fact (he used 40K worth of coke per year) even if uncorroborated, and material that is a writer's personal hypothesis, like Butterfield's musings on dysfunctional families. Anybody can play amateur psychologist, but that does not mean that this article is an appropriate platform for reporting such theorizing. It is not a matter of the material being inflammatory, but of its being germane and informative about Trungpa. Butterfield's opinions seem to be more informative about Butterfield. Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the former, I don't think we can say it reads like reported fact because the passage very clearly identifies the material as allegations by the Steinbecks, who were in a position to make credible allegations. Furthermore, they made their allegations in a book published by a major publishing house. I agree that some of the Butterfield material is on less solid footing, but the psychological theorizing is actually the part that is most well-disposed to Trungpa.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
All right, I brought back the specific claim about keeping the cocaine use secret. I have seen in many discussions on various web sites, claims and counterclaims, interpretations and counter-interpretations, that hinge on how open CTR was supposed to be, so this is clearly germane here. I think what we have in the article now is good. Any differing opinions, please speak up here. Bertport (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I still think the full quote should be restored, unless there is a valid reason why not. It also contained the info that he slept with a large number of his students, and not all of them were ultimately OK with it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought the subject of Trungpa's promiscuity was already in the article, but I don't see it. It certainly should get some coverage. Haiduc, what do you think about restoring the rest of the Steinbeck passage? Bertport (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Have others besides the Steinbecks made any claim about cocaine use, or corroborated the $40,000 figure? "Inflammatoriness" might be hard to pin down, but cocaine use is illegal. It is quite a serious charge, and not one that I have seen made anywhere else in writings about Trungpa.Jgrundberg (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a certain difference between an encyclopedia article and yellow journalism. The main thrust of a responsible approach is to focus on meaningful material that describes the man and his role and impact on society. Much of the deleted prurient material, like he fact that he may have suffered from incontinence in bed (this of man who was severely affected by paresis!) is juvenile or irrelevant. And the American fascination with drugs and sex has little to do with Trungpa's historical importance. "Promiscuity"?! That in itself betrays a lack of editorial impartiality. He loved a number of women? Sure it should be mentioned. Some had second thoughts? Lots of lovers have second thoughts, yours and mine too, I am sure.
In the final analysis the section suffers from undue weight, and not only should the stuff that was pruned stay out but possibly a good bit of what is left should be relegated to the status of a footnote. You are talking about a major teacher who inspired thousands, if not tens of thousands of students and who was very highly regarded by some of the most respected and experienced figures of Tibetan Buddhism, and you are not doing the reader a favor by highlighting the musings of a couple of disgruntled students. There is more on that Halloween party than there is on his Shambhala vision! This is ridiculous. We will all end up looking like a bunch of jerks. Haiduc (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We aren't talking about "a couple of disgruntled students". I personally owe a great deal to CTR (despite never having met him), but I'm very keen that the factual material about this incident should be retained. There's very little information about his "eccentricities" available in the public domain, and (unsurprisingly) there are many people who consider it their duty to ensure things stay that way. I don't have the same view about Steinberg's speculations about psychology, or about the value of the cocaine CTR may or may not have consumed in a year; I doubt Steinberg was in a position to know.
Furthermore: it seems that we aren't talking only about a single event. "Further, regarding Wilber’s intimation that the guru’s actions were an isolated “mistake”: When a former resident of Trungpa’s community was asked, in 1979, whether the “Merwin incident” was a characteristic happening, or a singular occurrence, she responded (in Clark, 1980): "It is a typical incident, it is not an isolated example. At every seminary, as far as I know, there was a confrontation involving violence." (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I find his various eccentricities talked about fairly openly in the biographies published and publicly available, in far greater detail than we have here (except for the cocaine claim only in Steinbeck's biography.) There have been a few now. But I'm not sure how seriously I would take Falk's book chapter compared to the more intimate accounts. Falk seems pretty partisan against the Vajrayana form altogether. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the cocaine usage, I don't know of other printed sources for this, but it is corroborated by multiple Trungpa students on other forums, including comments on the elephantjournal page that invited readers to strip this article. I also have known about this for many years. Even without corroboration from other parties, it passes Wikipedia standards for inclusion as a "Steinbeck claims" passage. (I don't object to your replacing "habit" with "usage" although I don't know how else you can use that much cocaine, other than by a pretty intense habit, and I'm not aware that "habit" constitutes a medical diagnosis.) The sexual habits (oh, did I just make a medical diagnosis? I didn't mean to) are more than a matter of some private individual getting it on with lots of lovers, in light of the position of power he held over his students. This territory is very familiar to students of power in religious hierarchies. The point of yours that I resonate with is the question of undue weight. I really don't have a strong feeling at this time as to how much prominence this material deserves in this article. Maybe adding the remaining material in footnotes is a good way to go. As for the existing (and long-standing) material on the Merwin incident, I will advocate strongly that it remain as is. That is by far the most famous controversial incident in his career, and the material here is the result of painstaking negotiation between editors with very different points of view. Bertport (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Having power and using power do not automatically translate into abusing power. But that is not an argument that either of us is qualified to engage in, according to Wiki rules. As far as the use of the term "habit," it is another word for addiction, and no credible sources have come forward to document that claim. Did he get the shakes when he ran short, did he exhibit pathological behavior? We do not know, so we cannot say he was addicted.
As for the Merwin incident, I still think it is overkill but for the moment I have no intention of trimming it down, especially if you say that it is the result of a lot of work. It certainly seems balanced, if overlong. As for other stuff, we could possibly take some of the remaining gossip and put it into footnotes, but I would not support reviving the deleted stuff in any form. Imagine doing an article on Auguste Rodin and spending a quarter of it discussing the fact he had athlete's foot.
As for the undue weight aspect, these eccentricities of a man who seems to have been unimaginably eccentric (a terton at an age when other children still played stickball, from what I hear) are not of the essence of his significance, which is that of being an exceptional spiritual teacher. They only take up the space they do because someone or other has found that they do not fit in with his or her expectation of what a spiritual teacher should be like. But there is a contradiction there that I should not have to explain. Haiduc (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that "habit" is equivalent to "addict" but as I said before, I'm OK with "usage" anyway. I have to disagree also with characterizing these claims as being "eccentricities" or anything so innocuous as a case of athlete's foot. Rick Fields, expressing one of the more comprehensive and balanced viewpoints, said that Trungpa did more good, and more harm, than anyone else. What was the harm? Certainly not just an isolated incident of humiliating two students at a seminary one night. I agree with Sylvain1972 that the story is not complete without even a mention of prolific drug usage (a controversial claim) and prolific sexual activity (which none will deny, but much controversy exists over how to characterize and how to interpret it). Bertport (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
While I still think the Merwin incident should stay, I do not think we should make the section a soapbox for Rexroth's spoutings. It is enough he is mentioned as having railed against Trungpa. This is another example of disproportionate coverage. Haiduc (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I am done with my edits for the moment. I have not squelched anyone, but have prevented some of these critics from droning on and on. Again, there is a difference between acknowledging criticism and putting a critic on a soapbox. Haiduc (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Umm, BertPort, what Rick Fields actually said was "caused more trouble, and did more good, than anyone I'll ever know." There's a world of difference between trouble and harm. Perhaps you're being a little trigger-happy? :-) szpak (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering where you were, Mark. Correction accepted. He may or may not have meant something equivalent to "harm" when he said "trouble". Bertport (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


"Unfortunately, jealousy between sangha members is probably inevitable. It is found in almost every sangha. If you are enthusiastic about the teachings, it is natural to want to be as close as possible to the teacher." Maybe a section jealousy around buddhist and other teachers should be added. Because -according to my judgement- people striving for common aims are not thus easily victim of jealousy, don't you think?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following you. But your suggested topic sounds like it would go somewhere else, not in the biography of one teacher. Bertport (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vajrayana dangers[edit]

It is preposterous to cling to the Butterfield text on Vajrayana dangers for two reasons. First, it is an excessive coverage of the opinions of a single student. It is as if we were raising Butterfield almost to a level of equality with Trungpa. In the second place, but just as important, is the fact that the Vajrayana is widely recognized as dangerous. Butterfield's text makes it seem as if Trungpa was out to scare his students with absurd bogeymen, but even the most rudimentary search of the material will reveal that it is common knowledge that the Vajrayana is dangerous.

  1. "Vajrayana evaluates itself as potentially dangerous...." Buddhism after patriarchy: a feminist history, analysis, and reconstruction ... By Rita M. Gross
  2. "by no means an easy path nor devoid of dangers..." The essence of Jung's psychology and Tibetan Buddhism: western and eastern ... By Radmila Moacanin
  3. "when not practiced properly the practitioner can harm himself..." The Buddhism Primer : an Introduction to Buddhism By Dhammasaavaka

I could go on and on, but you see my point. The remarks are taken out of context, and are grossly misleading. Haiduc (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Not everyone who comes to this article is familiar with Vajrayana tradition. It would be fine to add a remark following the Butterfield, to the effect that this threat of hellish suffering for breaking samaya is common to the Vajrayana tradition. For students of religious organization sociology, this is a recognized meme with recognized implications. It is meaningful to them, to learn that Trungpa promulgated this meme. If you insist, I will add a supporting citation from a Trungpa text. By the way, this is how controversy sections grow - different viewpoints challenge each other and draw out supporting material from each other. Bertport (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. But if this is a widely held view, as it certainly seems to be, what is it doing in the Controversies section??? Haiduc (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, there's the narrative flow of the article - we're in the midst of quoting Butterfield already. There's a subtext (one of many) in the controversies section about what the nature of the relationship between this teacher and his students was. Awful consequences to breaking samaya vows is part of the Vajrayana tradition, but it doesn't follow that every teacher embraces it, just as different Christian teachers embrace, emphasize, or reject different Christian traditions. Bertport (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that does not make any sense to me. We already have far too much of Butterfield here, an English prof who seems to have smoked lots of dope, and now we are compounding that problem by padding the controversies section with stuff that is not controversial at all (or if it is it is inherent to the Vajrayana and not to Trungpa) just because the other Butterfield material is in the controversies section(!). What kind of a system is this to write an article?! Not every Vajrayana teacher thinks it is crucial for the student not to break samaya??? You may be right, but a hell of a lot do think it is important, and even if some might take a devil-may-care attitude (who, if I may ask?) that does not mean that it is a Trungpa controversy, but as per above, a spiritual path controversy. Haiduc (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, too; your remarks aren't making any sense to me, either. They seem to amount to some personal animosity you have toward Butterfield. Bertport (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not important. I have criticized the article in several respects, and they are what needs to be discussed, not your opinions about me or my opinions about you. The arguments are:
  1. Butterfield's notions and musings are overrepresented in this article.
  2. Uncontroversial material is inappropriately placed in the controversies section.
  3. "Narrative flow" is an inappropriate justification for the misleading placement of material unrelated to Trungpa controversies.
I hope this makes more sense now. Please address these issues so that we can resolve them. Thank you, Haiduc (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Its place in the controversies section is clear enough. The material is not there because someone named Stephen T. Butterfield wrote it; it's there because it's one from one of the few published memoirs by former students of Trungpa, and because it makes pertinent points not otherwise brought to the reader here. Clearly he is expressing criticism of Trungpa's approach. The threat of unbearable anguish and disasters resembles (if not exemplifies) the well known strategy of using threats and fear to keep people from leaving the teacher's influence, and thus is one of the disquieting resemblances to cults. The paragraph we now have in the article is a minimum to give readers some idea of the tone and content of this former student's published take on Trungpa. You may call it criticism instead of controversy, but that is not a basis for excluding it from the article. We can change the section header to "Controversies and criticism" instead of just "Controversies" if you can't see having this under the shorter heading. Bertport (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not deny that there are cults which use methods of intimidation to keep followers from defecting. And I do not deny that on the surface, the threat of terrible things happening to someone as a result of mishandling the Vajrayana could be read that way. But if we make use of our editorial intelligence, we can readily conclude that in this case the danger is real, and the warning is in keeping with standard Vajrayana practices. That is why this material does not belong here.
It is like calling a nature guide manipulative and controversial for telling his clients that if they swim in the bay they will be eaten by crocodiles. The beasts are there and waiting. Where's the controversy??? We as editors cannot look only at the form, we have to look also at the context.
If you prefer, we can keep this material and place it in the teachings section, as part of a discussion about his bringing the Vajrayana teachings to the West. Haiduc (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd put it the other way around - on the surface, it seems to be merely an example of Trungpa bringing Vajrayana teachings to the West, but if we make use of our editorial intelligence, we can readily conclude that this is a superstition which bears a disquieting resemblance to one of the marks of a cult. That is why the material belongs where it is. Bertport (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue that the dangerous nature of the Vajrayana is a superstition, this is not the place to do it. And the "disquieting resemblance to a cult" is refuted by Butterfield himself. You are tilting at phantoms. Haiduc (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
@Haiduc - I think you raise an important question, but I disagree that Butterfield's comments about samaya are irrelevant to the controversies section. While it is true that Trungpa was expressing a fairly conventional Vajrayana view, there seems to be a widespread perception that Trungpa was a modernizer who presented the realms only in psychological terms. It is therefore instructive to see that he did also present hell as something which one can experience postmortem as (what seems to be) an external reality. That going to hell was presented as a consequence of disloyalty is also relevant to the controversies section in light of allegations of misconduct directed against him.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect here. Telling students they will go to vajra hell if they break samaya ("Trungpa told us that if we ever tried to leave the Vajrayana, we would suffer unbearable, subtle, continuous anguish, and disasters would pursue us like furies") and will have a bad time in the bardo, seems to be old hat in the Tibetan tradition, and as you say, it is a fairly conventional Vajrayana view. So far we are in agreement. But how do you get from Butterfields words, quoted above, to disloyalty? Butterfield does not say "if we ever tried to leave Trungpa." Presumably you could leave Trungpa and go to study with Kalu, or whoever. I still do not see controversy here.
If you want to call controversial his switch from the psychological approach to the less modern view of seeing bardo experiences as seemingly objective, then that needs to be stated as such. Haiduc (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, in this case I think the disloyalty thing happens to be true, and the implicit connection made between the first quote and the second one is not misleading. But you may be right that the evidence at hand is not explicit about this connection, so perhaps it does not sufficiently corroborate it. Re you second point, perhaps so. I can't do the work right now of constructing that with proper citations, but I'll keep it in mind. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It may be interesting to discuss how his approach was seen as controversial by the Tibetans for being too western and by the westerners for being too traditional. Haiduc (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight is being given in this discussion to a single sentence in the article. Editorial reasons for including a sentence do not have to be explicitly stated in the article itself. If we applied this level of scrutiny to every sentence in the article, we'd never be done. Bertport (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Some sentences are more pivotal than others. We do need to be accurate and truthful, and this process has been useful as groundwork for ongoing editing. Hopefully we will evolve a fair and stable version out of all this. Haiduc (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


It seems to me that some of the material at the top of this discussion page, though at the moment inappropriately phrased, can nevertheless be mined for useful information. For example, we could say about Shambhala training that "it is presented as a path that brings dignity, confidence, and wisdom to every facet of life" and that "the enlightened society it proposes would be led by himself as 'sakyong' (Tib. earth protector) and his wife as queen-consort or 'sakyong wangmo.'" Haiduc (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That would work. Bertport (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I am concerned by the recent edits to this and the crazy wisdom article, which personalize and thus delegitimize matters that should be approached more directly. Midal's comments echo statements made by others. His status as a student does not seem to be relevant here, though it might be in other circumstances, suc as his expressing personal opinions uncorroborated by others. Haiduc (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. As long as he is accurately reporting the assessments of others, there is no need to qualify his reportage.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I don't understand what you are doing, nothing has been removed from the article. Haiduc (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death[edit]

I was OK with removing the symptoms of cirrhosis because I thought it was settled, with the final admission by Trungpa's personal physician, that he died of liver poisoning due to alcohol consumption. Those symptoms were originally listed here because people were contending that he died of "heart failure". But removing the actual statement by the physician reverts the article to an unacceptable state of saying "he died of heart failure". Therefore, I have restored a version that presented the full story of the cause of death. Bertport (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No such edit intended. I will check. Haiduc (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"He had chronic liver disease related to his alcohol intake over many years." It is there. What are you talking about? Please restore my work, I was not done. Haiduc (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at you will see the lead says "he died of cirrhosis of the liver" and references "Chronicles Radio Presents. November 1st, 2008" where his personal physician finally puts a rest to the years of denial about the cause of his death. Maybe you aren't aware of all the active resistance that went on, at this article and elsewhere, to acknowledging that his liver failed due to chronic alcohol consumption. That history of denial is, in fact, a significant part of his legacy. Bertport (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no denial whatsoever. If his doctor says he died of cirrhosis, that is it. It is there in the Death section. But I looked at a whole bunch of other articles on lamas, and did not find a single one that lists the cause of death in the lede. I do not think it belongs there, all the more so when we have two sections below that discuss it, the Death section and the Controversies section. Talk about beating a horse to death! Haiduc (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Denial of denial. Read the archives of the talk page. I contend that the cause of death does belong in the lead, because it was premature and it was a consequence of his signature lifestyle, and because many of his students have denied it for so many years. In any case, you removed the definitive statement of cause of death from the article altogether, not just from the lead. Bertport (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No intention at all of removing anything definitive, I may have done it inadvertently as I was doing a lot of very quick edits. Feel free to put that back in, or I will be happy to do it. But I will not agree with putting the cause of death back in the lede. You are beating people over the head with it, there is no need. Three times is overkill. Two times is too many, but I can let that pass. But I have to point out that there is a vindictive quality to this article that has troubled me from the get-go, and you have reinforced my suspicions with your statement that we have to put the cause of death in the lede because it has been denied by his students. Who are you getting back at?! Are you punishing his students for being in denial??? I was in the process of working some material on his controversial history into the lede, in the last para, when you trashed my work. Let me finish what I was doing and then we can discuss. Please restore it, I do not want to do it myself. Haiduc (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of your recent edits were not actually improvements to the article, anyway. The article is well balanced as is. Be more careful with your edits and do not remove critical material. I see you did not understand the critical nature of that citation because you have not studied the subject closely. But that should be a signal to you to proceed more cautiously and find out why material is in here. I will accept moving the definitive statement of cause of death to the death section, even though that is a detrimental edit, but I will not accept removing it altogether. Bertport (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I will continue the revisions and expansion from where I left off. At the same time I will ask you, if you have an objection, to first discuss things. I have no appetite for conflict, and I think you and I can resolve anything through dialogue, if the experiences of the last week are any guide. Haiduc (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On Chögyam Trungpa[edit]

"Inhis public and private teachings he wove in what he called the Mother, who 'safeguards against the development of ego's impulses". Trungpa 1973 a, 23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Trungpa on Dakini[edit]

Trungpa 1973 a, 23
-- (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source: Stripping the Guru's chapter on Trungpa Rinpoche[edit]

Wikiwhip (talk) has questioned if this is truly an unreliable source. He did not post the this unreliable source. This "book" is actually only a PDF file that the creator previously spammed on dozens of wikipedia articles until he got blocked. He even tried to write an article for his pdf file! --Peter Jackson Biddulph (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Orlady previously asked Biddulph to follow certain guidelines when removing sources that he considers unreliable. I do not "keep adding" the "Stripping the Gurus" source, as Biddulph accuses me of doing. It has been listed there for years. I merely undid Biddulph's removal of the source twice and will continue to do so until he proves that he is not censoring controversy about Trungpa, which has been repeatedly (though unsuccessfully) attempted by members of Trugpa's organization. The source itself is based upon dozens of quotes from reputable third-party publishers. Biddulph, please wait until we get a second opinion from Orlady before you undo my edit.

WikiWhip (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)WikiWhip

I have to agree with Peter Jackson Biddulph that this is not a reliable source. There is plenty of other reliable material which can (and is) cited which makes clear the nature of Trungpa... this cite is unnecessary. I have to personally agree that Trungpa was something of a scoundrel, and I personally enjoy seeing him exposed. That, however, does not require the use of such a shaky source. Marteau (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, the length of time that citation has been here is completely irrelevant. As is PJB's motivation. He may well be trying to protect Trungpa's reputation... I have no idea... but it does not really matter WHAT his motivation is... only that this source is very weak. Marteau (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! Wikiwhip... changing PJB's words he said himself, as you did with this edit [7] is HIGHLY uncool. If you want to challenge what he says, then challenge what he says, but changing his very words is completely unacceptable! "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" as per [8] Marteau (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is not a reliable source. The author has no relevant academic background or credentials, and the publication itself is peculiarly unbalanced and agenda-driven, more like the outpourings of spiritual neurosis than objective assessments. Contrary to what has has been said above, it has been published as a book since 2009. Even though it has been around for a long time, it has the notably poor Amazon rank of 1,600,000. Trungpa's oddities, from peccadillos to the dark side, are properly documented elsewhere, and there is no need to use this, rather scurrilous source. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwhip (talk) please explain how this is a reliable source? As far as I can tell, it does not adhere to any of the requirements for notability as laid out in WP:IRS. Please do not resort to "it has been on this article for a long time" because that is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is what Orlady said about another occurrence... as far as I can tell, she has not had anything to say about this instance. In addition, Peter Jackson Biddulph's motives are also irrelevant... all that matters here is, is this source reliable or not? Marteau (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to not being a reliable source, the content itself of the pdf file or print to order book is also not reliable, as detailed here. -- (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

About the "publisher" of this book... the author says this on his blog: "Back over the summer, I had finally officially registered Million Monkeys Press (my self-publishing thing) as a business entity..." ( warning: Google says that site may be compromised). Million Monkeys Press only publishes the author's book... clearly this book is by the author's own statement, self-published. According to WP:SPS self-published works are only permissible as a citation when the author is an "established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and I see no evidence of that. Clearly this cite does not belong here. I recommend giving WikiWhip a chance to either concede this source is unreliable or offer up evidence of this author's status as an expert as well as having been published elsewhere. If that fails, perhaps a submission to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard may be necessary. Marteau (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiWhip doesn't have to "concede this source is unreliable or offer up evidence of this author's status as an expert...". The absence of a coherent response from WikiWhip is enough to establish a clear consensus here that the source is unreliable, and you are starting to beat a dead horse. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing cite. Sentence supported by this citation does not require editing or removing due to numerous other examples of unconventional teaching within that section. Marteau (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth Date[edit]

This passport image shows his birthdate as Feb 19, 1939. This article says Feb 28. Is there evidence of Feb 28 as his actual birthdate? Avibodha (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chögyam Trungpa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mukpo, pp 223
  2. ^ Steinbeck 2001, pp. 32, 41
  3. ^ Steinbeck 2001, p. 268
  4. ^ Butterfield 11
  5. ^ Butterfield 12, 100
  6. ^ Butterfield 239