Talk:Mipham Jamyang Gyatso
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Mipham Jamyang Gyatso, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
This reads much more like a traditional panegyric for a revered figure than an encyclopaedia article. Example: Under Early Life "...no text was unknown to him". That's obviously not literal truth - or if it is, then evidence should be presented to substantiate it, as it is apparently a remarkable claim.
I think the article should be rewritten, avoiding this traditional tone. MrDemeanour 10:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. That statement, like the others, is qualified properly - "it was said that." The article reports on how he is revered. Sylvain1972 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche
SMR was not recognized as the widsom emanation of Ju Mipham, he was recognized as the principle incarnation. His website reflects this. The earlier line of 2nd and 3rd incarnations is not universally accepted among Nyingmapas.Sylvain1972 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Sylvain1972. I certainly do not challenge your correction, but I wonder if there's an explanation somewhere of the difference b/w 'emanation' and 'incarnation' -- I myself wasn't aware of a technical difference. I'll see what I can find but if you have any insight it would be appreciated. Thanks! Zero sharp 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not that I have seen. I'm not sure if there are two Tibetan terms. And often the English words are used interchangeably. However, often there is a "principle" tulku who is the primary heir to the lineage along with other emanations. Jamgon Kontrol Lodro Thaye is a good example of this - he had five emanations in the next generation, but Jamgon Kongtrol of Palpung (2nd, 3rd and 4th) has always been the main one.Sylvain1972 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Apparently in Tibetan the word "trolpa" (not sure of the wylie) is used for what is generally considered an "emanation," whereas tulku is reserved for an "incarnation." Sylvain1972 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Encyclopedic prose
Much of this article is written in opinionated, unprofessional style. "Reading through his works, it seems he was equal parts Aristotle, Nostradamus, Shakespeare, Donne (especially in Mipham's early didactic compositions), Blake, and -- when it comes to his rare forays into commentary and prophetic laments of history's demise -- one admits there is a bit of an angst-ridden Eliot in places." This should be an enc article, not a series of personal musings. 129.137.249.51 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Would you care to change that? --Gimme danger (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the sentence that you gave as an example, but don't have time to clear out the rest of the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
