Talk:Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso

Untitled

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)

Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche

SMR was not recognized as the wisdom 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)

Sylvain, both of the words Tulku / Trulku (sprul sku) - "emanation body" and Trulpa (sprul pa) emanation, magical creation have exactly the same root.

Personally I don't know why people make such a fuss about who is the supposed incarnation of a lama and what kind of emanation or incarnation they are supposed to be when editing Wikipedia articles. Lets face it the institution of Tulkus in Tibet was a skillful and effective way of embodying lineages in an identifiable line of individuals. How appropriate and useful this institution still is at the present time and in different lands I don't know.

While they will be respectful to them, most Tibetans will admit when speaking frankly that Tulkus were and are frequently recognized for political or patronage reasons often having to do with the incarnates family as much as anything else. Other tulkus are only considered to have a sort of "blessing" or empowerment of the previous incarnation. Probably only a tiny minority are actually considered direct incarnations who have recollection of their previous life - and that recollection is usually said only to manifest while the tulku is a small child and/or after long years of retreat.

IMO even if a tulku is a "true" reincarnation he is a bit like a Buddha statue which is only considered to be a piece of metal until it has been properly filled with mantras and relics and then consecrated. Similarly even a tulku needs to be filled with teachings and empowerments and then do the practices before they are realized and can benefit people.

Let's be realistic - if you take a precocious child, usually with smart well off parents, give him all the best treatment, food, attention and teachers etc. - and tell him from infancy he is a special incarnation he is likely to wind up believing this himself. Certainly he is likely to be far better educated and so on than all the other little boys brought up in the monastery without the same facilities, treatment and tutors. Many of the qualities people perceive when they meet young tulkus can easily be accounted for by their upbringing alone. I'm far more impressed with the real accomplishments of lamas who have done years of study and practice than I am of the supposed accomplishments of many so-called tulkus. ::::Mipham himself was never formerly recognized as a tulku in his lifetime - and Milarepa was not considered a tulku during his. I don't know why western followers of Tibetan Buddhism, including those who edit WP articles, make such a fuss about incarnations and tulkus. (Apologies for the diatribe) Chris Fynn (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

With no disrespect at all, IMO most of the stuff on SMR and what kind of incarnation he is probably belongs in the Sakyong Mipham article not here. The other incarnations should also have their own articles if needed with only a brief reference here. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "making a fuss" - it is simply an attempt to record accurately the way that the tradition represents itself. Readers can decide for themselves whether it is legitimate or not. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 suspect a little bird might have been responsible for that. Please, by all means bring it back in line with WP. 71.139.8.71 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 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)

Some of this seems to have been copied pretty much verbatim from various Buddhist web sites without any reference. Paste a few sentences into Google Search and you will see what I mean. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

More than twenty pages of first-class source material on Mipham's life is available on-line through Google Books: The Life and Works of Mipham Rinpoche - from Pettit, John Whitney. Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzochen, the Great Perfection. Boston: Wisdom Publications (1999). ISBN 0861711572 p. 19-39. Material from this could be used and cited to improve this article. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Drastic Surgery!

I've taken the plunge and begun a major overhaul of this article - trying to make it much more concise and better organized as well as more biographical and less haigiographical. Wth this in mind I've performed some pretty major excisions on the rambling and speculative parts - removing all references to Shakespeare, Tiger Woods and so on which simply didn't belong in an encyclopedia article on Mipham. I've tried to keep all the relevant parts and organize the content more coherently and, as requested, attempted to make the prose a little more encyclopedic and "neutral". Need to add references. This exercise will undoubtedly take some more days to complete - hope people will bear with me till then before screaming. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

The article now reads more factual rather than speculative. Is there some other "dispute" going on beyond that former critical consensus? Can we remove the June 2008 Neutrality Tag? It seems misleading at this point, unless... is nyone actually disputing recognition one of the 'emanations'? 70.137.148.197 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just removed it - it shouldn't have been on so long in the first place, seeing as it was added by an anon user without explanation. Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Names

I've moved this article to Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso - the simple transcription of what seems to be the most canonical form of Ju Mipham's name. Also have updated all the most important links to the page

The Library of Congress has "ʾJam-mgon ʾJu Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho" & "Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho, ʾJam-mgon ʾJu" as the main forms of his name - but the LoC record for ʾJam-mgon ʾJu Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho also has a huge number of variant names:
LC Control Number: n 50082432
Cancel/Invalid LCCN: n 83207399 n 00047206
LC Class Number: PL3748.M54
HEADING: Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho, ʾJam-mgon ʾJu, 1846-1912
Used For/See From: ʾJam-mgon ʾJu Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912

• ʾJu Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912
• ʾJam-dbyaṅs-rnam-rgyal, Mi-pham, 1846-1912
• ʾJam-dpal-dgyes-paʾi-rdo-rje, 1846-1912
• Mañdzu-gho-ṣa-bi-dza-ya, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-ʾjam-dbyaṅs-rnam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-rnam-par-rgyal-ba, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-phyogs-las-rnam-par-rgyal-ba, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-ʾjam-dpal-dgyes-pa, 1846-1912
• Blo-gros-rab-gsal-padma-bźad-pa, 1846-1912
• Kheschhog Mipham, 1846-1912
• Ajitaguru, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham Rinpoche, 1846-1912
• Jinendra Mephampa, 1846-1912
• Mephampa, Jinendra, 1846-1912
• ʾJam-mgon Bla-ma Mi-pham, 1846-1912
• Bla-ma Mi-pham, ʾJam-mgon ʾJu, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham Rin-po-che, ʾJam-mgon ʾJu, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham, Lama, 1846-1912
• Lama Mi-pham, 1846-1912
• Mipham, Lama, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-ʾjam-dbyaṅs-phyogs-las-rnam-rgyal Dpal-bzaṅ-po, 1846-1912
• ʾJam-mgon Mi-pham-rnam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-rnam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho, ʾJam-mgon, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-rnam-rgyal, 1846-1912
• ʾJam-dpal-dges-paʾi-raṅ-mdaṅs Mtsho-byuṅ-bźad-paʾi-ge-sar, 1846-1912
• Mtsho-byuṅ-bźad-paʾi-ge-sar, ʾJam-dpal-dges-paʾi-raṅ-mdaṅs, 1846-1912
• Mipham Jamyang Gyatso, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-ʾjam-dbyangs-rgya-mtsho, 1846-1912
• Chü Mou-pʻan-chia-yang-nan-chieh-chia-tsʻo
• Mipham Rinpoche, 1846-1912
• Su-dhi-sūrya, 1846-1912
• A-dzi-ta, 1846-1912
• Mipham, Jamgon, 1846-1912
• Lama Mipam, 1846-1912
• Mipam, Lama, 1846-1912
• Ju Mipham, 1846-1912
• Mipham, Ju, 1846-1912
• Mi-pham-gya-tso, ʾJam-go ʾJu, 1846-1912
• Mi pham ’jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho, 1846-1912
• Mi pham ’jam dpal dgyes pa’i rdo rje, 1846-1912
• Mi pham jampal gyepa, 1846-1912
• Mi pham rje, 1846-1912
• Jamgon Mipham, 1846-1912
  

I'm not sure that we also need IPA: tɕu mipʰam namcɛ cɛ̃tsʰɔ; "official" PRC transcription: Ju Mipam Namgyai Gyainco; traditional Chinese: 米龐仁波切; simplified Chinese: 米庞仁波切 and Pinyin: Mǐpáng Rénbōqiē variants of the name as this is English Wikipedia not Chinese Wikipedia.
Chris Fynn (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's nice to have IPA included so that a curious reader can find out how the name is actually pronounced (at least in one dialect of Tibetan). That does require a pretty thorough knowledge of IPA, though (a skill well-worth developing, in my opinion ... at least, for anybody who tends to be curious about how foreign names are pronounced). It might be more useful to more readers to have an pronunciation respelling of a suggested English pronunciation instead ("Joo Mee-pəm" perhaps), although I've never seen that on any other articles.

Also, the IPA pronunciation [cɛ̃tsʰɔ] is wrong; that would be something like "Gyäntsho" / "Gyentso" ... I doubt very much that anybody pronounces rgya-mtsho that way. I'm going to fix it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Nat Krause:My objection was more to all the different varieties of Chinese than to the IPA. IMO these may be fine in Chinese Wikipedia, but are just clutter in English Wikipedia. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso. 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/20070928004539/http://www.mipham.com/biography.html to http://www.mipham.com/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso. 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/20090215202746/http://shambhala.org/teachers/sakyong-mipham.php to http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/sakyong-mipham.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq?RID=P252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)