Talk:Sakyong Mipham

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

The proper location for this page[edit]

I've relocated this page back to where it was. Yes, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is a title, but so what? This is the most logical place for the article to be found. If a person wants information about Prince Charles, is he going to refer to "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor"? Of course not, and accordingly, that's not the convention that wikipedia has followed.~GZ 11/10/05

Unexplained dispute[edit]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The original writers of this page should recall that Vajrayana Buddhism is a nontheistic and nondual tradition, and as such, even hagiographic writings can be presented in such a way that the uninformed reader can find both objective facts and his or her own illumination through the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:11, 4 July 2005

This is too obscure to constitute a reason for disfiguring the article with the NPOV template. Could you explain clearly what the lack of neutrality is supposed to consist in? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

Conversation between Mr. Etitis & Mr. Abbot[edit]

Dear Mr. Etitis,

I regret my tone above to the degree it has offended you, as you are obviously a devoted student of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. Nonetheless, the sheer abundance of subjective positions regarding biographical data that are presented here as objective fact (e.g., "he is the second incarnation" rather than, say, "several Tibetan Buddhist leaders and the Sakyong's students consider him the second incarnation"; "living proof of the vitality of Buddhism" instead of another well-written and colorful, but less overtly adulatory, description; etc.) obviates the need for me to catalogue every instance. I am a student in both Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's and the Sakyongs' lineage, and I am also an experienced publicist. With all due respect, the current article reads more like a less-than-subtle press release than a careful account of the current Sakyong's life and accomplishments. As such, it runs more of a risk of steering thoughtful prospective students away from the Shambhala community than magnetizing them toward the lineage of Rigdens.

I will try to find time to edit the piece, and I certainly will remain open to your assistance there. However, I will continue to monitor the NPOV status to make sure it remains. This is not a case of disfiguring the article, but rather one of avoiding any appearance of impropriety in the form of what might be construed as cultish or similarly theistic worship. I think you will find that Carolyn Rose Gimian, for example, does an exemplary job of preserving a standard of objectivity while nonetheless capturing those qualities of the teacher(s) that generate such widespread respect. This is a delicate negotiation, but to me it seems consistent with the demands of prajña and the precision of Vajrayana tradition.

I appreciate your time hearing out the basis for my use of the designation.


J.I. Abbot

Dear "Mel",

With the desire to engage in a less formal exchange, I ended up Googling your nom de plume (as I soon realized it is), and had a long series of thoughts I think I might have had earlier. First, I read your description of your work and ideas regarding Wikipedia (and editing same). I must confess to being new to Wikipedia, but I now realize it might have been best to find some other way to discuss this rather than jump to the route of the NPOV flag and attendant talk page.

In any event, I think that we both have the same desire to protect and promote public understanding of Shambhala, despite the perhaps oppositional way in which we met. So please accept this note as a gesture of good faith. I know now that I can reach you through your own talk page, so I will remove both the NPOV sign and talk page hyperlink from the SMR article and copy and paste this text to your page. I now surmise that you yourself posted the notice that the page needed to be Wikified, to append to what at that time was a draft that you had written.

Through this encounter, I am growing increasingly interested in the Wiki culture, and hope I can learn some things (also if you'll accept my apology and consent to teach me) and over time contribute something myself here.

Thanks for your time with this (for me, anyway!) interesting event. I have had quite an engaging ride of emotions and thoughts; it's been most instructive.


Jesse I. Abbot

P.S. I noted that you teach philosophy at a college of Oxford. I also teach -- literature and writing for University of Hartford, and an online philosophy survey course for the modest but well-meaning Tunxis Community College. I recently joined the International Association for Philosophy and Literature (IAPL) in an effort to connect more widely to others making interdisciplinary mischief like myself. In any event, I was curious if you knew Michael and Shenpen Hookham, students of the Vidyadhara who used to reside in Oxford, but now (I think) live in Wales? I met Shenpen at a short weekend retreat when I was staying at my grandmother's summer cottage in Old Woodstock fifteen years ago. I have lovely memories of both this weekend and my whole time in the Oxford area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:42, 5 July 2005

I wasn't offended — I'm sorry that my brusqueness (caused by haste, not irritation) misled you. My concern wasn't a result of my being a devoted student of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche; it was just that I couldn't see why you'd placed the notice, and your original explanation didn't help. The thing to do in these cases is to edit the article rather than labelling it. The "NPOV" notice is really for cases where editors can't agree on what constitutes a neutral point of view. If I get the chance, I'll edit the article (in line with your suggestions) myself, but feel free to jump in before me. One of the mottos here (albeit one that's rather over-used) is "be bold!" — this is definitely an occasion for boldness.

I don't know the Hookhams, I think. We did nearly buy a house in Old Woodstock, but eventually travelled further afield; the bus service to Oxford isn't bad, but I prefer the train if I can manage it.

I hope that you enjoy your experience at Wikipedia; you'll find it mixed, to say the least, but the pleasure outweighs the pain, by and large. You'll almost certainly find things easier if you open an editing account (free, easy, no strings, and it brings a number of advantages; I've left a standard invitation at your IP address Talk page); also, always remember to "sign" your messages with four tildes (~~~~, which inserts your User name (or IP address), date, and time. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

In fact somebody else left the invitation before I got there; do think about it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

Who was the Dharma heir supposed to be?----

There is a big difference between being the "King" of Shambhala and the lineage holder of the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. I arrive at my question because history has been rewritten by Shambhala International, according to those who were there. (I was not) It will be awhile before this issue is resolved, but historical fact says that Trungpa intended for an American to hold this lineage, to create Western Buddhism. Not necessarily his son....Donalds 00:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This idea comes from Prof. Giovannina Jobson, who was Trungpa Rinpoche's kasong in the mid 1980s and Acharya Reginald Ray, senior student of Trungpa Rinpoche, Naropa University, Boulder, CO in the context of the course "The Founder" Nov. 2005Donalds 07:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chogyam Trungpa empowered Thomas Rich/Ösel Tendzin as his Vajra Regent and Dharma Heir on August 22, 1976. The story and accompanying proclamation can be found in the publication Garuda V (1977). On February 27th, 1979, in a public ceremony and lhasang, the Druk Sakyong (the title Trungpa used in his role as Sakyong of Shambhala) empowered Sakyong Mipham as the Sawang, his Shambhala heir. Shambhala, in Trungpa's vision, was a sacred Kingdom which "does not distinguish a Buddhist from a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu" (Great Eastern Sun, the Wisdom of Shambhala, p 133). There were two distinct streams of transmission, one religious and Buddhist, the other secular. This is confirmed in Trungpa's will. However, in 2000 Sakyong Mipham proclaimed Shambhala Buddhism, which incorporates Shambhala teachings into a Buddhist religious practice: in this view being Buddhist is necessary for fully following the Shambhala path. Meanwhile, Ösel Tendzin's line continues with his heir, Patrick Sweeney.
-szpak 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why the article can't incorporate this information, it is interesting. There are also the public documents on the to consider, which indicate that HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and HE Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche felt strongly that SMR should inherit the dharma lineage as well, given the impending death of the Regent, and that this was agreed to by the Regent. Sylvain1972 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on Sakyong Wangmo makes no grammatical sense[edit]

~~ Please note that the section on Sakyong Wangmo makes no grammatical sense. It sounds like two women are married and have a child and that one of them is married to her father. Since I don't know the true state of affairs, I can't fix this, but someone ought to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:36, 22 August 2012

There seem to be two talk pages. A policy page with one comment, and a second regular talk page, which appeared briefly, then I haven't been able to get back to it.[edit]

The policy states the article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talkcontribs) 01:24, 19 January 2013‎

In 2006 there was confusion on what the page title should be. Someone attempted to move/redirect the page and accidentally wiped out the talk page. I have restored the old talk page content. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on an event of creation, de novo[edit]

Reviewing the edit history of this article, it seems it sprang, fully formed, from the mind of an IP editor (or perhaps was translocated to this place and time from another):

  • 15:38, 10 November 2005‎ (talk)‎ . . (5,594 bytes) (+5,559)‎ . . (reestablishing at Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche - see talk)

Apart from this creation event, there is little further very substantive addition. [No aspersions cast on the editors correcting and maintaining the article.]

The point is that the whole of this article comes from a single source, but that source appears no where in the article. The single reference that appears, to pages in a Jeremy Hayward book, is about Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's confirming Ösel Rangdröl as his heir and future Sakyong (i.e., is only ambiguously and tangentially about the title subject). After that, the only other citations that appear regard marital details of the title subject's consort, and these are both dead links.

Hence for all intents and purposes, the state of this article is that:

Please, those who care about this subject, do something about it. Tags were added, given the dire state of this BLP article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've added back some actual biographical information that had been removed a few months ago, and cited sources. The links all work now and at least some of the information in the article is cited. It still needs lots of work though, and I think I'm done for now.HazelAB (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)