Talk:Drukpa Kagyu

Drukpa Kagyu

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. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Changchub (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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.[1] 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."[2]. Here is another Drukpa master, Dru-gu Choegyal Rinpoche, who calls himself "Drukpa Kagyu." [3]

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. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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. JigmeTobden (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (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 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. Sylvain1972 ([[User

talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We would be happy to hear from Lotsawa Tony Duff and he can send an email to me at mail@drukpa.com. JigmeTobden (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (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)

And in the 4th stanza says, I bow to the precious Kargyud Lineage, And in 5th stanza says, I bow to the precious Gurus of the Kargyud Lineage.

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.

Thanks,choki Nangwa from Bhutan

No disrespect intended, but I have a few problems with just changing things to a Kargyud rendering.

1. Are you suggesting we also remove the statement "...is a major sect of the Kagyu school of Buddhism" ?
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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? - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)