Talk:Jampal Trinley Dradul

The proper location for this page

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

In any event, performing a cut-and-paste move is not the solution to the problem. I have undone the process.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the process. It's a solution as far as I can see. It is no longer possible to do a move because of the initial vandalism. The original argument is bogus in any event because Jampal Trinley Dradul is no more his name than Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. His given name is something else entirely. Sylvain1972 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Mipham a title? I thought it referred to who he was the reincarnation of, which makes it vaguely like the name a pope assumes. Akb4 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope's pope name is a good analogy. Sylvain1972 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained dispute

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 67.172.41.37 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see no reason why the article can't incorporate this information, it is interesting. There are also the public documents on the http://www.chronicleproject.com/tcs.html 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)

um, still npov

while it's great to see mr. etitis and mr. abbot conversing above in a civil fashion, this article still sounds like a press release to me, and probably should be flagged until it gets fixed. I'm not going to, because I'm not sure when I'd get back to check on things. problem phrases include: "studied with Khyentse Rinpoche for many years", "with many dignitaries in attendance and much celebration", and the entire dharma activity section. The Sakyong section seems pretty circuitous; going into the meaning of the word sakyong and the role of the sakyong before explaining that his father was the first one (and doesn't appear to have widely used the title himself) is confusing at best.

Given that the subject of the article has at least three different names, it'd be good to explain what they all are. Also, it perhaps should be noted just which trungpa rinpoche the first wangmo is the widow of (the 11th, yes?). Akb4 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rinpoche

"Rinpoche" is an honorific (meaning "precious one" in Tibetan) commonly afforded to Tibetan lamas. wouldnt it be better to say 'commonly afforded to tulkus' or 'commonly afforded to reincarnate lamas' because mostly such a lama could be called Rinpoche, and certainly not any lama? Ill make a change to the first suggestion, freely revent/modify if having an objection or better suggested wording. But isnt that entire remark unnecessary - people can click on Rinpoche anyways for such information?--83.131.147.153 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]