Talk:Rimé movement

Moving Forward

I paired back the Dorje Shugden controversy to a mere mention, since it only vaguely relates to Rime in my opinion and is covered in significant depth on other articles as we all know so well by now. I'd also like to archive all of the discussion on this page into an archive subpage soon so I don't have to keep looking at the personal attacks. But if someone thinks that the discussion is still going we should wait and archive later. What say you? - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have provided many unbiased sources to show that the Rime approach is eclectic. I was waiting for Thegone to provide citations to show otherwise. He agreed to my compromise before, which I will hold him to, unless other users have opinions. To summarize, I don't believe that the Rime movement itself is eclectic (and in that sense I agree with Thegone that Rime is not an eclectic school); but from the sources I quoted above, I understand that the Rime movement promotes an eclectic approach in the student, in terms of study and practice. Emptymountains (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Thegone has been banned indefinitely, so I recommend going ahead and archiving this talk page. I'm going to implement the compromise that he agreed to, which I mentioned just above, but I am willing to discuss it further if others disagree. Is the rest of the article okay with everybody? Do we want to revert it back to an earlier date? 205.145.17.20 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections, and I want to thank Owlmonkey in particular for trying to find a middle way. --Dspak08 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Discussion archived. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some personal povs or one-sided claims in the article I remove now. The intro is in contradiction to later passages and the explanation of RT. --Kt66 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Dorje Shugden controversy on Rimé page

If we check the the activities on this page over the last month or so, it is clear that it is better to keep the referencing of the Dorje Shugden controversy to a minimum. Otherwise, this page becomes simply a reproduction of an already existing article, as both sides seek to put in their POV. So for balance, we just mention that these are related issues and we send people over to the DS controversy article. This was an agreement reached by the editors of this page after some very ugly back and forth. Therefore, I kindly request those seeking to put their views on the DS controversy into this page to consult the archive of the talk pages. This is already an explosive issue, but to rediscuss it on every page where there is something even remotely related can quickly make things quite messy. So my understanding of the agreement is in this space we agree not to go into it other than refer people to the main article on the controversy. Do we all agree? --Dspak08 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it just to a mention. My reasoning is primarily that it's not really a rimé issue. It's worth a mention because it purportedly concerns orthodoxy, but as the Dorje Shugden controversy article shows, it's much more complex than just an argument about sectarianism. Further, the rimé movement itself is not entirely idealistic in its origin, so to even paint it as an idealistic anti-sectarian view is not entirely right either. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

kt66's recent changes

On a Tricycle blog at [1], someone posting as "Tenzin Peljor" or "T.P." posted the following on the same day as kt66's recent changes:

I corrected a bit the WP article. The intro was contradicting what other sources state, and ‘eclectic’ is no general definition but some use this term in that context.

In a previous post (which I guess I can now also attribute to kt66), T.P./you also say:

With respect to Wikipedia, em, it was you who changed the definition of what Rime is into your own personal point of view without adding qualified 3rd party sources... Your addition doesn’t make it better.

I read the Rime article on Wikipedia to try to learn more about it, not to push an agenda. I believe that my changing the definition of Rime from...

It seeks to unify the various traditions and their philosophies into one coherent school of thought, and is responsible for a large number of scriptural compilations.

...to...

Excluding non-Tibetan traditions, it seeks to unify the animistic Bön religion with the Buddhist Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug traditions, syncretising their philosophies into one coherent school of thought. It is responsible for a large number of scriptural compilations.

...did improve it because Rime is a Tibetan phenomenon, and is not so concerned with non-Tibetan religious traditions. For example, do Rime practitioners actively seek out non-Vajrayana religious traditions? What about Vajrayana traditions that are not Tibetan (e.g., Shingon)? So, I thought it important to list the four major Tibetan Buddhist schools, along with the pre-Buddhist Bon religion (as its practices are also said to be open to Rime practitioners). Please, if you have a source saying something different, go ahead and change the article.

At least according to Ringu Tulku (whom you also recommended), Rime is not a Buddhist school but a movement or approach, hence my last major edit until a month later when Thegone came onto the scene. He then tried to remove my previously sourced edit that said Rime is an eclectic movement. I’m sorry, but he was the one who couldn’t provide any sources saying Rime was not eclectic, whereas I kept finding more (including Kay)! You’ll remember that on Wikipedia, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not but whether it is verifiable. Also, please note that even the staunch Rime practitioner Thegone accepted my definition of Rime and did not make any corrections to it.

With regards to your recent edits, you quote one source (Ruegg) who doesn’t like the word eclectic, whereas Kay, Dreyfus, Batchelor, and Keown use it without reserve. Even Samuel continues to use the word ‘eclectic’ after he cites Ruegg! But, just because the word is given an alternate translation (i.e., universalistic) by that one source, he should outweigh all the others?

You have removed eclectic from the context of the Drefyus quote, replacing it with inclusive as this is a term that Kay uses. Well, Drefyus did use that word many times (see archive), and Kay uses it too!

You originally listed Atisha as a Rime practitioner in principle, then removed him from the list saying he was Indian, not Tibetan. If that is your criterion, then why did you remove my statement that Rime is practiced only between the Tibetan religious traditions—for which reason I had listed the 4 major Tibetan traditions plus Bon—saying this is a “misrepresentation of facts” on my part?

So, according to you, ‘one’ is given more credence than ’some’, and inclusive replaces every instance of eclectic although Dreyfus and Kay and others use them both freely. If an NKT Wiki editor worked this way, you wouldn't stand it for a minute. I didn’t think you liked double standards. So, I appeal to your intellectual honesty to fix this.