Jump to content

Talk:Drukpa Kagyu: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Assessment: banner shell (Rater)
 
(158 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Bhutan|class=stub|importance<sup>Superscript text</sup>=}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=Stub}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Bhutan|importance=Low}}
{{Tibetan}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=Low}}
__TOC__
}}
==Wiki for Drukpa==
__TOC__
{{archivebox|
#[[/Archive|discussions to {{date|2008,09,11}}: pre- and post-Requested Move]]
#[[/Archive2|/Archive2]]
}}


=="Drukpa" vs. "Drukpa Kagyu"==
I suggest that since there are so much information on the Drukpa order. Why not you create a Wiki indepently for yourself, like Rangjung Yeshe, then there is no need to waste time discussing with those who are not really in the lineage and just quoting from all over. I went through your discussion, I believe there is much more than just debating with people not familiar with the problems faced by the Drukpa and yet they feel that these problems should be discussed openly and let outsiders judge. I look forward to seeing an indepedent Wiki with information provided by the enlightened masters and followers of the Drukpa Order. Looking forward to that development. To Tobden, Chokyi Nangwa and Karma Choden, you can use your time more productively to develop your own wiki, don't waste your time here.
[[User:JNawangD|JNawangD]] ([[User talk:JNawangD|talk]]) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously you didn't read the discussion very carefully, because Jigme already said he decided to start his own wiki. Wikipedia is the place where things are discussed openly and people can judge for themselves, so if that makes you uncomfortable then you are indeed wasting your time here.[[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::Hi JNawangD, we have just started with Drukpa Wiki, but the full set up may take about 1 week before others can log in to submit information. However, this will be moderated by an assigned group, so that Dharma will not become drama (quoting from one of the teachings by His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa). We appreciate your comments and if possible, can you email us the Rangjung Yeshe Wiki link? I want to recommend you the latest post by Holiness at http://www.drukpa.org/news/2008/080426_kathmandu.html. We want to thank Sylvain1972 for taking us through an extremely interesting spiritual adventure on Wikipedia and through a mind exercise. The latest blog on www.drukpa.org answered our doubts. My best to all!
[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden|talk]]) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Wendy L. (IP [[Special:Contributions/76.89.241.64|User:76.89.241.64]])
==Drukpa==
It is generally accepted that the Drukpa school is part of the Kagyu lineage. I have provided multiple citations to demonstrate that this is so. User JigmeTobden is continually removing them. If certain factions of the Drukpa school do not consider themselves to be Kagyu, I have to objection to the inclusion of this POV in the article. However, it seems that JigmeTobden will not permit the conventionally accepted understanding to be mentioned, regardless of the legitimate citations of reputable sources. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


On [[User_talk:CFynn|my talk page]] you wrote:
:I agree with Sylvain, I am however somewhat interested in the "translated directly from Tibetan" sources that JigmeTobden mentions that he believes indicate it is not a Kagyu lineage. As another historical aside, the Bhutanese royal family and many prominent Drukpa lamas in Bhutan have long enjoyed a very close relationship with high lamas from the Karma Kagyu lineage such as the 16th Karmapa, although not proof, it would seem to lend credence to the idea that many Drukpa consider themselves Kagyu. [[User:Changchub|Changchub]] ([[User talk:Changchub|talk]]) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
: To Christopher Fynn,


: I am writing from DPPL, official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage. While we appreciate your detailed contributions to the Drukpa wiki page, our lineage holders consider the lineage to be "Drukpa," rather than "Drukpa Kagyu." We politely request that you refrain from changing the entry back to include "Kagyu." Thank you very much for your understanding.
::The term "Kagyu" has always been applied to Tibetan Buddhist lineages where the main lineages of instruction and practice are those of the Six Yogas of Naropa and the Mahamudra of Saraha/Maitripa/Etc. This clearly applies to the Drukpa Kagyu. The literal meaning of the word "Kagyu" is not relevant. Furthermore many Drukpa Kagyu lamas CALL THEMSELVES "Drukpa Kagyu." Why else would Tsoknyi Rinpoche call his organization the "'''Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project'''?" He calls himself a "Drukpa Kagyu" lama on his own website.[http://www.pundarika.org/tsoknyi_lineage.html] There is a long passage in the Drukpa nun [[Tenzin Palmo]]'s book ''Reflections on a Mountain Lake'' where she describes an inner voice telling her that she was a Kagyupa and her teacher Khamtrul Rinpoche as a "Drukpa Kagyu" lama. Furthermore, the official website of the Government of Bhutan lists the state religion as "Drukpa Kagyu." That is how they identify themselves. Another Drukpa master, Dorzong Rinpoche, has a section of his website called "Drukpa Kagyu Lineage."[http://www.dorzongrinpoche.org/drkp_lin.htm]. Here is another Drukpa master, Dru-gu Choegyal Rinpoche, who calls himself "Drukpa Kagyu." [http://www.choegyalrinpoche.org/Lineage.htm]


:Wendy L. DPPL <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.89.241.64|76.89.241.64]] ([[User talk:76.89.241.64|talk]]) 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::All of this contridicts DrukpafrmBhutan's assertion that Drukpas reject the designation "Kagyu." The recent editors from Drukpa Publications have been ignoring that point. It seems more accurate to say that the Gyalwang Drukpa rejects the term "Kagyu" for reasons of his own. Not only have they been trying to substitute an unsubstantiated revisionist agenda, they have been trying to censor out the long-established information commonly accepted by most authorities and laypeople alike. The article should really be moved back to "Drukpa Kagyu" for that matter. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Respectfully, in many traditional Tibetan sources and in most modern academic sources this tradition is generally referred to as the "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ and, though it has some unique and special trachings, this lineage has always been considered as an independent branch of the Kagyu tradition established in Tibet by Marpa, Milarepa and Gampopa. The contemporary Bhutanese branch of the Drukpa Kagyu also seems happy to be known as Kagyu, as it frequently identifies itself as such. Since in traditional Tibetan sources, modern academic sources, and elsewhere the tradition is referred to as "Drukpa Kagyu" - this seems most appropriate name to be used in an encyclopedia. It also avoids confusion since today Drukpa also frequently means "Bhutanese"). If for some reason the modern Drukpa (Kagyu) institution or organisation headed by H.H. Drukchen Rinpoche, the respected heirarch of the main Tibetan branch of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition, has chosen to re-brand itself as simply "Drukpa" or "Drukpa Lineage" that is another matter. I presume this is being done in order to give the contemporary Drukpa school an identity clearly distinct from that of e.g. the Karma Kagyu, the Drikung Kagyu, and so on. However, understanstandable as this is, it does not mean that the widely used and accepted term for the historic religious tradition should be changed or altered in an encyclopedia article to align with this contemporay excercise in re-branding. Furthermore, removing from the [[Drukpa| Drukpa article]] quotes and references to published sources in which the name "Drukpa Kagyu" is used, apparently simply because you don't like the name, as you appear to have done - is IMO close to sheer vandalism. As you say you are from the "official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage", do you represent a NPOV in this matter?
As you claim that you should be having the NPOV, we are really surprised to say that "the article should really be moved back to "Drukpa Kagyu" for that matter" - are you declaring that you too do not want to accept other views? Then Wikipedia is only for the "widely accepted" information but not the "unheard" and the "yet-to-be-known", isn't it? As you said that we should not be removing your claims which are supported by books written by some masters in the last century, and that we are only permitted to voice a different angle. If Wikipedia is a place whereby newcomers have to defend their information, then it would be quite pointless to put information on Wikipedia when other voices are overwhelmed by the majority. We clearly see that Wikipedia was not set up for this reason. We have even undone DrukpafromBhutan's version to give you Mr. Sylvain a fair place for working very hard to get source to defend your stance. We shall also be providing the sources.
[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden|talk]]) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[[User:CFynn|Chris Fynn]] ([[User talk:CFynn|talk]]) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
:I did not create any of the wikipedia policies about what content is acceptable for inclusion. You may read about them here: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and here: [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]]. You will see that Wikipedia is in fact not for the "unheard" and "yet-to-be-known." Both fall under the category of [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] and as such are not permitted. Also, I mentioned to Tony Duff of the Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project that you believe they don't represent the Drukpa school. He stated that he has a good relationship with the Drukchen and would like to speak to your regarding this. If you provide an email address, I will forward it to him. I appreciate the fact that you are interested in working constructively on this article with respect to the conventions of Wikipedia. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User
talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Wendy, there is no point discussing with Chris Fynn, we had a huge discussion with everyone in th globe (Chris Fynn and Sylvain72 are very popular among many of us, including Rinpoches and Tulkus) and found out more about Chris and his background. There are many "scholars" like that. Look, he is still saying "Drukchen Rinpoche" and that's why when some histories were manipulated hundreds of years ago, before we were born, this is the end-result. Let's spend our time building our Wiki. Forget about this!+[[Special:Contributions/118.100.72.169|118.100.72.169]] ([[User talk:118.100.72.169|talk]]) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Isn't it just as objectionable for Wendy L to remove nearly all references to ''"Drukpa Kargyu"'' or ''"Drukpa Kagyu"'' in an encyclopedia article simply to comply with DPPL preferences? ''Drukpa Kagyu'' is after all the way this school of Buddhism is usually referred to in both academic publications and popular books on Buddhism. While her reasoning is clearly outlined in the sub-section "Name" that has been incorporated into the the article itself, this does not alter the fact that many other reputable sources, including many followers, still refer to the school as the ''Drukpa Kagyu''. [[User:LodruD|Lodu]] ([[User talk:LodruD|talk]]) 07:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
We would be happy to hear from Lotsawa Tony Duff and he can send an email to me at xxxx.
[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden|talk]]) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


:You are correct. This page is not NPOV at all.[[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


::Google Book Search currently gives only 14 hits for publications with the phrase "Drukpa Lineage" but 542 for those with "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ something like 1:38. "Drukpa school" has 137 hits, but together at 151 that is still only about a third of those using "Drukpa Kagyu". There are a number of publications using both terms. "Drukpa Kargyu" (with an "r") also has 54 hits, "Drukpa Kagyupa" 166, and "Drukpa Kargyupa" 46. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] lists "Prevalence in reliable sources" as an important criteria. [[User:LodruD|Lodu]] ([[User talk:LodruD|talk]]) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am from Bhutan and we are the follower of the Drukpa Lineage, as such I
wish to clarify that in our religion text, in our websites and words of
prominent Lamas(such as all Jekhenpos(head of monastic body))and History
Books of Bhutan states that the state religion in Bhutan is known as
“Drukpa Kargyud “and not “Drukpa Kagyu”. We never learned our state
religion as Kagyu. Please know the difference between “Kargyud” and
“Kagyu”. In Preliminary practice by 8th Gyalwang Drukpa Kunsig Choenang
(The chariot of Grace) it is clearly mentioned in the preface. page no 17
3rd stanza says I bow to the precious white lineage (Kargyud Lineage)


Wendy,<br>
And in the 4th stanza says, I bow to the precious Kargyud Lineage,
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things [[Special:Contributions/Drukpa Lineage|you have written about]] on Wikipedia, you may have a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. In keeping with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should '''avoid''' or '''exercise great caution''' when:
And in 5th stanza says, I bow to the precious Gurus of the Kargyud Lineage.
#'''editing''' or '''creating''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
#'''participating''' in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion_processes|deletion discussions]] about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
# '''linking''' to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Spam]]).


Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability of information]], and [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiographies]].


For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|our frequently asked questions for organizations]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-coi -->
Of course it might be true that the Bhutanese royal family and many
prominent Drukpa lamas in Bhutan have enjoyed close relationship with high
lamas from the Karma Kagyu lineage such as the 16th Karmapa, But it does
not mean we consider ourselves Kagyu. Dalai Lama respects Pope and has
good relationship, does that mean all the Tibetans are Christen? Besides
we respect and also enjoy a good relation with high lamas of all the other
traditions too, Though we are Firmly Dongyud Pelden Drukpa and recognize
only the Je Khenpo the representative of Shabdrung Rinpoche as Head of the
Lineage in Bhutan and His Holiness the twelfth Gyalwang Drukpa as head of
the all Drukpa lineage In Tibeat, Ladakh, Grsha, Kinnaur, Ladakh, and
west Bengal, Sikkim etc.
Thsese categorization of four major kagyu and eight lesser by Pawo
Tsuklak Trengwa, has never been acknowledged by us and other
lineages. Furthermore I wish to state that, though Lingre Kagyu is
mentioned as the one of the eight lesser Kagyu the Drukpa lineage is not
mentioned in the categorization at all.
It is not right for you write that “the Gyalwang Drukpa rejects the term
"Kagyu" for reasons of his own.” H.H Gyalwang Drukpa being the Head of the
Drukpa Lineage, we the people of our country and followers of Drukpa
Lineage from all over world don’t want him to be disrespected that
way,please Desist from further disrespectful writings about H.H.Gyalwang
Drukpa.


== NPOV problems ==
Thanks,choki Nangwa from Bhutan


The following (and possibly other portions of the article) have some problems with preserving a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]:
:No disrespect intended, but I have a few problems with just changing things to a '''Kargyud''' rendering.
<blockquote>Drukpa lineage continues to thrive and flourish and benefit all sentient beings. It is supported by the state and given unconditional effort by all involved, from the lowest rung to the highest level.
# Are you suggesting we also remove the statement "...is a major sect of the Kagyu school of Buddhism" ?
# The two citations used currently with the alternative rendering are for the Kagyu representation and lineage history. So just changing kagyu to kargyud but leaving those two citations incorrectly attributes the sources. We can't do that. Maybe we need to include more views instead of less here but we can't just remove one view because you don't like it.
# To include the kargyud alternative here we need a different citation that discusses that usage. The ngondro text introduction you mention may be fine, but even better would be a scholarly piece that discusses the history of that usage and how it relates to kagyu. Do you have any citations like that?
# In texts that discuss the major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, I've seen Kargyud simply listed as an alternative for Kagyu. Not an alternative spelling for sure, since Kagyu is a shortening of "four lineages" and kargyud refers to "white robes" but taxonomically equivalent. Some western scholars also describe the Kamtsang as the Karma Kargyud. But doing searches I find three times as many using the English rendering Kagyu instead of Kargyud to refer to both lineages.
# The current lineage views may differ from the [[doxography]] suggested by middle age lineage holders and we must consider that. If the modern Drukpa lineage in Bhutan is descended from the same line of transmission of the Kamtsang (from Gampopa yes?) that's relevant for a taxonomy. What did the lineage holders of each tradition consider themselves or terms used to describe themselves hundreds of years ago? I'm fine including a discussion of how the traditions described themselves over time instead of suggesting that there is only '''one''' correct taxonomy.
:For now I'm going to change it to include both but I'm guessing we need more scholarship? - [[User:Owlmonkey|Owlmonkey]] ([[User talk:Owlmonkey|talk]]) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Nonetheless, the 4th Gyalwang Drukpa Pema Karpo left a prediction that he would return with two reincarnations. His other reincarnation, Pagsam Wangpo continued the lineage in Tibet.</blockquote>
:::I have already presented a great deal of evidence that many many famous Drukpa Kagyu lamas consider themselves Kagyu, and not in the sense of "white robes," in the sense of the "the lineage of the oral transmission" of Gampopa, Milarepa, Marpa, Naropa, etc. That is the point that you refuse to acknowledge. I never suggested that the Drukpa lineage is part of the Karma Kagyu, or under the authority of the Gyalwa Karmapa, because I certainly agree with you that it is not. It seems that you are conflating "Kagyu" and "Karma Kagyu," which is incorrect. I said nothing disrespectful of the Drukchen - I just pointed out that while he doesn't seem to use the term Kagyu, many other Drukpas do use it. I don't care if we leave out the "four great and eight minor" formulation. I am even willing to include a mention of the fact that some Drukpas do not consider themselves Kagyu, although we haven't seen any evidence of that except personal testimonials on this talk page and the conspicuous absence of the term on drukpa.org. But as I have shown, it is simply untrue that no Drukpas consider themselves Kagyu, because clearly many of them do. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


The first sentence states a religious belief (that the lineage "benefit[s] all sentient beings"), which cannot be the viewpoint of a neutral source such as Wikipedia; "thrive and flourish" are also probable [[WP:PEA|peacock terms]]. The second claim of "unconditional effort" is dubious at best, and seems likely also a [[WP:PEA|peacock term]]. The fourth is no problem, except for needing referencing. The fifth assumes the reality of reincarnation, which is also a religious belief, not the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia. (I say these things out of no dislike for Buddhism - my wife is a Buddhist - but out of trying to improve Wikipedia.) [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User talk:Allens|talk]]) 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
To user Sylvain1972. We thank you for not considering 'Drukpa' as a part of Karma Kagyu. But not everyone is like you. A series of negative exchanges has taken place with Tony Duff. At the end, we don't think anything positive can result form these exchanges. While we shall continue to work for the lineage, despite being called "small-minded", "blind" and "arrogant" by Mr. Duff, as there are too many precious masters and their activities that need our support, we pray for your success on your spiritual path. We are also surprised to see you discussing this on the Buddhist Blog (lioncity) where you seem to have thought of us being political. The reason why we are going through this exercise is to get ourselves out of the political mud. However, as everyone has the right to pose any opinion here, we respect yours. As His Holiness and many great masters say, "If there is no one to make you angry, you cannot practice Bodhicitta." All the best!
[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden|talk]]) 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


== Copyvio removed ==
:I think very highly of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage, I would like to see it flourish, and I am sympathetic to your concerns if the problem is Karma Kagyu people meddling in Drukpa Kagyu affairs. That would be very unfortunate. If some Drukpas want to stop using the "Kagyu" name as a result, that is unfortunate but understandable. In this day and age everything is discussed openly and publicly, and I think that is the best approach. That is why we cannot just erase "Kagyu" from the Drukpa article, as if no one was going to notice and wonder what happened. But we can say, "the Gyalwang Drukpa has decided to stop using the term Kagyu to protect the independence of the Drukpa school." And there is no problem with that, if that is the truth. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We thank you for your understanding. But really, these are issues that up to lineage masters, His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa and other Rinpoches, whether they want to make this statement. When they are ready to make this statement together, we will definitely update you. There are already a group of scholars, including some Khenpos, giving proofs of 2nd Gyalwang Drukpa Kunga Paljor's statement on "Kargyud". Anyway, we appreciate your efforts and from this exercise, we have actually decided started our own Wiki. Rinpoches whose advices were sought after our "active exchanges" with you and later on some unpleasant but useful exchanges with Mr. Duff, had advised that we only have to follow His Holiness's direction and keep calm. The Drukpa Lineage is a beautiful lineage that is full of enlightened yogis. We as followers of the lineage are worried and cannot understand how Buddhist masters could prey on other lineages. We don't want to call names, as this may bring to another "XX-Issue" or "XX Controversy" or rather "Free Drukpa". Mr. Duff says that "Your lineage is dying, even the Gyalwang Drukpa says so. If you want it to survive, you might have to start including people who know what the problems are and who are willing to speak about them. Tibetans and their blind-eyed supporters--I believe you are included--are not going to address those problems, precisely because they are so blind." You know, we were very saddened by his remarks, because we have followed these masters as we believe in their enlightened qualities. Whatever it is, we as followers of the Drukpa Lineage, are proud of the 800-year legacy and we are going to support, whatever happens and whatever it takes, even if everyone says we are "blind", "arrogant" and possibly stupid. I want to propose to take out this part of the discussion and hope that whatever exchanges we shall have shall be in the spirit of "Live to Love". My best to you and your spiritual endeavors. In case you are still interested to contact us, you can email me at mail@drukpa.com.
I just had to revdel about eight years worth of edits because of plagiarism from [http://web.archive.org/web/20091007201243/http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10901 this article]. It was inserted at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drukpa_Lineage&oldid=229445463 this edit] in 2008. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden|talk]]) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

:OK, I look forward to hearing more when more information is available, and wish you the best for your projects. Cheers, [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
:Good news, I found a good source for some of your statements about the name. I also found a helpful blog entry by the Drukchen, so we can include that too. I think these changes will make things more clear - thank you for bringing this to my attention and improving the article. Cheers, [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Drukpa Lineage]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=755278882 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602014604/http://www.dailynews.lk:80/2007/07/25/fea11.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/07/25/fea11.asp

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

== How to add cite for Dampa Sumpa? ==

Sorry but it's been years since I did any work here. <br />
''see'' http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rechung_Dorje_Drak<br />
--[[User:BenTrem|BenTrem]] ([[User talk:BenTrem|talk]]) 03:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:40, 29 March 2024

"Drukpa" vs. "Drukpa Kagyu"

[edit]

Dear Wendy L. (IP User:76.89.241.64)

On my talk page you wrote:

To Christopher Fynn,
I am writing from DPPL, official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage. While we appreciate your detailed contributions to the Drukpa wiki page, our lineage holders consider the lineage to be "Drukpa," rather than "Drukpa Kagyu." We politely request that you refrain from changing the entry back to include "Kagyu." Thank you very much for your understanding.
Wendy L. DPPL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.241.64 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, in many traditional Tibetan sources and in most modern academic sources this tradition is generally referred to as the "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ and, though it has some unique and special trachings, this lineage has always been considered as an independent branch of the Kagyu tradition established in Tibet by Marpa, Milarepa and Gampopa. The contemporary Bhutanese branch of the Drukpa Kagyu also seems happy to be known as Kagyu, as it frequently identifies itself as such. Since in traditional Tibetan sources, modern academic sources, and elsewhere the tradition is referred to as "Drukpa Kagyu" - this seems most appropriate name to be used in an encyclopedia. It also avoids confusion since today Drukpa also frequently means "Bhutanese"). If for some reason the modern Drukpa (Kagyu) institution or organisation headed by H.H. Drukchen Rinpoche, the respected heirarch of the main Tibetan branch of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition, has chosen to re-brand itself as simply "Drukpa" or "Drukpa Lineage" that is another matter. I presume this is being done in order to give the contemporary Drukpa school an identity clearly distinct from that of e.g. the Karma Kagyu, the Drikung Kagyu, and so on. However, understanstandable as this is, it does not mean that the widely used and accepted term for the historic religious tradition should be changed or altered in an encyclopedia article to align with this contemporay excercise in re-branding. Furthermore, removing from the Drukpa article quotes and references to published sources in which the name "Drukpa Kagyu" is used, apparently simply because you don't like the name, as you appear to have done - is IMO close to sheer vandalism. As you say you are from the "official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage", do you represent a NPOV in this matter?

Chris Fynn (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendy, there is no point discussing with Chris Fynn, we had a huge discussion with everyone in th globe (Chris Fynn and Sylvain72 are very popular among many of us, including Rinpoches and Tulkus) and found out more about Chris and his background. There are many "scholars" like that. Look, he is still saying "Drukchen Rinpoche" and that's why when some histories were manipulated hundreds of years ago, before we were born, this is the end-result. Let's spend our time building our Wiki. Forget about this!+118.100.72.169 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just as objectionable for Wendy L to remove nearly all references to "Drukpa Kargyu" or "Drukpa Kagyu" in an encyclopedia article simply to comply with DPPL preferences? Drukpa Kagyu is after all the way this school of Buddhism is usually referred to in both academic publications and popular books on Buddhism. While her reasoning is clearly outlined in the sub-section "Name" that has been incorporated into the the article itself, this does not alter the fact that many other reputable sources, including many followers, still refer to the school as the Drukpa Kagyu. Lodu (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. This page is not NPOV at all.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Book Search currently gives only 14 hits for publications with the phrase "Drukpa Lineage" but 542 for those with "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ something like 1:38. "Drukpa school" has 137 hits, but together at 151 that is still only about a third of those using "Drukpa Kagyu". There are a number of publications using both terms. "Drukpa Kargyu" (with an "r") also has 54 hits, "Drukpa Kagyupa" 166, and "Drukpa Kargyupa" 46. Wikipedia:Naming conventions lists "Prevalence in reliable sources" as an important criteria. Lodu (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy,
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

NPOV problems

[edit]

The following (and possibly other portions of the article) have some problems with preserving a neutral point of view:

Drukpa lineage continues to thrive and flourish and benefit all sentient beings. It is supported by the state and given unconditional effort by all involved, from the lowest rung to the highest level. Nonetheless, the 4th Gyalwang Drukpa Pema Karpo left a prediction that he would return with two reincarnations. His other reincarnation, Pagsam Wangpo continued the lineage in Tibet.

The first sentence states a religious belief (that the lineage "benefit[s] all sentient beings"), which cannot be the viewpoint of a neutral source such as Wikipedia; "thrive and flourish" are also probable peacock terms. The second claim of "unconditional effort" is dubious at best, and seems likely also a peacock term. The fourth is no problem, except for needing referencing. The fifth assumes the reality of reincarnation, which is also a religious belief, not the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia. (I say these things out of no dislike for Buddhism - my wife is a Buddhist - but out of trying to improve Wikipedia.) Allens (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio removed

[edit]

I just had to revdel about eight years worth of edits because of plagiarism from this article. It was inserted at this edit in 2008. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drukpa Lineage. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to add cite for Dampa Sumpa?

[edit]

Sorry but it's been years since I did any work here.
see http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rechung_Dorje_Drak
--BenTrem (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drukpa_Kagyu&oldid=1216218677"