Talk:Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen

Vajrayana iconography: ratna, cintamani, wish fulfilling jewels, charmstones, crystals, gems

The Twilight Language of thangka iconography is a visual hagiography. The trance-masters, consciousness-journeyers and great meditation masters are always surrounded by ratna as is Dolpopa. Blessings to the masters of the Glass Bead Game.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitsube's Hatchet Job Again

Yet again he has chopped bits out of articles that he doesn't understand. How would anybody know from this article now that Dolpopa was a major exponent of tathagatagarbha doctrines ? Is this Mitsube fellower some kind of Gelukpa censor, you know, the sort who put the works of Dolpopa and Taranatha under lock and key for generations ? Who on earth told him that Shentong is derived from Yogacara ?! -- अनाम गुमनाम 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Once more I must thank Anam Gumnam for speaking out against this Mitsube's unwarranted censorship of correct information that he/ she evidently has a personal dislike for. To say that Dr. Shenpen Hookham is not a scholarly source is ridiculous, as she has specialised in Dolpopa and the Tathagatagarbha doctrines for her Ph.D. at Oxford University and has indeed authored a major book on the subject, as well as being a respected Kagyu lama. Also, it seems that a personal vendetta (bordering on the libelous) is being waged against Dr. Tony Page, who is one of the few scholars in the UK who have spent decades researching into Tathagatagarbha doctrine. I agree with you, Anam Gumnam, that Dolpopa was (and remains) a significant figure in Tibetan Buddhism and that he was indeed a strong supporter of Tathagatagarbha doctrine. This needs to be mentioned in the article, so I have restored the unjustly and unjustifiably censored material. Suddha.Suddha (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

|I do not have a copy of Hookham's book "The Buddha Within -- A Study of the Tathagatagarbha Doctrine", but I have looked on the internet and find that it is a published version of her doctoral thesis and published by the State University of New York, and reviewed in a number of specialist journals such as this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2057956

It is therefore rather stupid to say that she is not a scholar. I am inclined to see the hand of another censorious dictator at work here. Regrettably, I have encountered this kind of attitude elsewhere in the Buddhism pages. -- अनाम गुमनाम 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hookham is fine, but the source for the quote is not reliable. Tony Page is (it appears) without qualifications and is self-published. Mitsube (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so suddenly Hookham does meet with your esteemed approval now. The next logical step for you, the great tathagatagarbha fan, would be to get her book and try learning something. If you didn't even know that she really is a scholar, how can anybody give much credence to any of your other spurious claims ? Is it because she is also a nun ? But so is your precious Shih. Perhaps you are just another one of these opinionated and self-appointed Wiki "experts" who are not even aware that they are making fools of themselves. Please have a bit if self-respect and be a bit kinder to yourself than that. -- अनाम गुमनाम 23:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense some anger on your part. Keep in mind that this is only extrinsic ... it is not your True Self. You had not indicated that she was trained as a scholar, and not just as a lama (not a nun). Mitsube (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that many users on Wiki are so limited in their palette of descriptors about other people's feelings and moods. Immaturity ? Yes, I am feeling something but it is not anger -- it's a little bit more subtle than that: it's called exasperation. -- अनाम गुमनाम 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Prove that Dr. Tony Page is 'without qualifications' and that the book 'Buddhism and Animals', which I quoted from, was 'self-published'! As far as can be ascertained, Dr. Tony Page is a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University, wrote a doctoral dissertation on Austrian philosophical ideas with reference to Buddhism, is supported in his work by Buddhist translator Stephen Hodge and by Japanese tathagatagarbha expert, Professor Shimoda, and has lecturerd on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, at that University's invitation. Unqualified? Suddha (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Does he hold a PhD in Buddhist studies? In what way is he supported by those other two? Mitsube (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see from my copy of 'Buddhism and Animals', to which Dr. Shenpen Hookham wrote a Foreword, that Dr. Hookham comments: "Dr. Page is a creditable Buddhist scholar". Seeing as you finally accept that Dr. Hookham is indeed herself a Buddhist scholar, her endorsement of Dr. Tony Page is good enough for me. But some people will never be satisfied .... Suddha (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• As I have indicated elsewhere, I understand your feeling of frustration, Anam Gumnam! I think any fair-minded and equitable person would. Anyway, I hope in the future to provide some more detailed information about Dolpopa's ideas (Hopkins and also the 'Buddha of Dolpo' book give excellent coverage of the key points). But we really cannot allow editors simply to remove valid passages of information from Wikipedia just because they don't like them. I am completely at one with you on this. There should only be intolerance of actual factual error. But I see no such error in the Purity in Buddhism piece (tathagatagarbha section) at all. As before, I welcome and read with interest your helpful comments. Suddha (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Six Yogas

I deleted the reference to the Six Yogas, which refer to the Six Yogas of Naropa; which is an entirely different practice from the Kalachakra Six-branched Yoga.rudy (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoting specific contemporary teachers

Does anyone have an opinion on this? The link "Tibetan Buddhist Rime Institute - Holder of Kalachakra Jonang" goes to a website of a contemporary Jonang Lama, but there is no information on Dol po pa on the site. I understand the lineage relationship, but I feel the link would be more appropriate at the Jonang entry, rather than in a biographical page on a specific historical master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabhusuku (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mahabhusuku. I think the link is not wholly appropriate here. As you say, the link would be better in the Jonang article, or Rime article. However, I don't think it is doing any 'harm' here - so I personally would leave it. If you want to remove it, though, I would not object! Suddha (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501060531/http://www.jonangfoundation.org:80/dolpopa to http://www.jonangfoundation.org/dolpopa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802162134/http://www.tbrc.org:80/kb/tbrc-detail.xq? to http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq;jsessionid=25CF7CB81ACC97459F59D74E0EDCFC1A?RID=P139&wylie=n

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)