Talk:Rigpa

Gap between thoughts?

From the article: Rigpa in the Tibetan language means the gap between thoughts. Tibetan Buddhist monks try to focus on that particular moment in order to achieve a clear and still state of mind during meditation.

It seems to me that this does not correspond to what the dictionaries say. I also do not remember such term usage from any of the relevant books on Dzogchen. Is it a Sutra interpretation? --Klimov 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look here

• [2]

1. for rig
2. for pa
3. for ye shes

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.39 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Aspiration or not?

VidyA (विद्या) and VidhyA (या) are both evident and I am unsure whether one is 'more' correct or not. Both are attested in Romanized Sanskrit sources. The Devanagari is evident in both modes as well. I would intuit that Classical Sanskrit would be aspirated and modern Hindi would have dropped the aspirate. But this is conjecture.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The third śloka of Patañjali's Yogasūtra (a Hindu text) explicitly identifies Five Poisons (Sanskrit: pañca-kleśa):

अविद्यास्मितारागद्वेषाभिनिवेशाः पञ्च क्लेशाः॥३॥

Avidyāsmitārāgadveṣābhiniveśāḥ pañca kleśāḥ//3//

I just checked this quotation and it is verse 11.3 (the 3rd verse of section 2) and the Sanskrit in the above is inconsistent with the version I hold which is (it also doesn't have the 'five' either the 'pañca' *i just figured out how to enter the nasalized n which is done in SCIM with the tilde before the letter! पञ्च)

अविध्यास्मितारागद्वेषाभिनिवेशा: क्लेशा: /३/

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Split problematic in accordance with WMF reluctance to be used for webtraffic promotion

Support Split/Oppose Disambiguation Page. WMF is not an appropriate venue for promotion or advertisement of on going non-profit enterprises, no matter how kind and benificent the beneficiary of such exposure. Thus it is always problematic when contemplating encyclopedic articles on such enterprises when they are in fact noteworthy.

A slew of disambiguation pages clutters wikipedia and reduce user friendliness.

However the section on this page discussing the Rigpa organization does not belong here in an article on the concept Rigpa.

Rather than a disambiguation page which hampers the wikipedia surfing experience I think it would be less the superior option to include a line at the top which simply states that the word also refers to the Rigpa organization and offers a link to that page. Surfers would in this preferred option by default be directed to the ancient technical Buddhist term and only secondarily be given access to the contemporary proper name organizational entity.

This approach has the net effect, no pun intended, of perhaps slowing WMF-generated web traffic to the website of organizations who name themselves, conveniently, using ancient terms. But this is as it should be. Geofferybard (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of action.

I went ahead and put in a proposed section split and pulled the stale article split template which no one has ever commented upon. IMO anyone is free to create the new page but please spare us the disambiguation page if you can figure out how to put a simple link instead. People can always google Rigpa Organization or whatever if they really want that, and for that matter it will appear on a list of search returns anyway so there is no need for a messy, ugly, distracting disambiguation page. Geofferybard (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote here. I think we should just go ahead and create a new page for the Right Organization or whatever. makeswell (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Op47 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede (lead section) needs tweaking

I really like Sogyal and I respect him, and admittedly I need to study his work and practical recommendations in greater depth. However, as I have, at other pages, I really have to recommend that ancient venerable texts, and words, with ancient lineage, need to be discussed, in their opening paragraphs, in an objective manner which does not in any manner highlight any one particular school of thought or, especially, any one particular contemporary writer.

Obviously, it is irrelevant that you may insist that any such writer is the nţħ incarnation of some highly regarded source. This is, after all, wikipedia, and, even if there is good cause to believe that a particular contemporary may in fact be a tulka or even an embodicment of Avalokiteshvara, that contention is, per se, POV.

In all seriousness, the reference to Sogyal Rinpoche needs to be either (a) in footnote, or (b) in a later paragraph. If we permit the definition of an ancient word to even appear to be in any manner promotional of a particular author or movement which is active in today's world, the situation will deteriorate to a battle between different denominations, factions, sects, organizations and there will be unfair unintended consequences impacting not just those most interested in the topic but also the general users of WMF...| GeofferyBard(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

Merging-in Kadag Trekchö and Lhündrub Tögal

I've merged Kadag Trekchö and Lhündrub Tögal into Rigpa; after cleaning-up and removing all the unreadable stuff, very little remained, with substantial doublures. Placed together it makes a better article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Three wisdoms etc

The source given here does not say what the Wiki-texts say. Other texts which were removed were sourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The text you removed under three wisdoms was sourced too. Certainly Ron Garry's 2005 commentary in Appendix 1 of Wisdom Nectar is a better reference than Rigpa Wiki or Rywiki (you shouldn't link to other wiki's). Moreover your page links to sutric Zen concepts (kensho), which has nothing to do with Dzogchen. We can resolve this dispute by using the top translator of Dzogchen, Erik Pema Kunsang. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're more familiair with this topic than I am; I've no idea who Kunsang is, but I thrust you completely on this. Regarding the changes:

• Kadag and lhungrub: Dudjom Rinpoche does not mention thugs rje; other sources only mention two aspects
• Trikaya: this came from one of the other pages which I merged (as far as I remember)
• Visualization: no problem with me to remove this; I took it over from the other page
• I've removed the Zen-links, though they give a nice comparison

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, funny thing is: Erik Pema Kunsang gives a link to rywiki ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And this book is on my wish-list; Google preview showed a snippet which says that insight is only the start of the path; that's also what Zen says. Made me very greedy right away to read this book! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"thugs rje": "ngo bo rang bzhin thugs rje [...] essence, nature, and capacity. The three aspects of the sugata-garbha according to the Dzogchen system" [3]. Sugata-garbha = Buddha-nature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Kadag and lhun grub section is filled with junk like the Dalai Lama, other wikis, a reference from 1991 etc. And it does not even explain Kadag is related to trekcho and lhun grub is related to thogal. How about we quote Ron Garry directly, and leave it at that? Something like:

Kadag and lhungrub

Garry states that the two aspects rigpa, kadag (primordial purity) and lhun grub (spontaneous presence), correlate to the practices of trekcho and thogal respectively:

The practice is that of Cutting through Solidity (khregs chod), which is related to primordial purity (ka dag); and Direct Vision of Reality (thod rgal), which is related to spontaneous presence (Ihun grub).

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised, but in a positive way, that you call the Dalai Lama "junk". I know very little about his ideas, but our B9-friend may have had a point when he wrote that, for the Dalai Lama, everything is mind, and that the DL is wrong there. Let me think it over for a while, okay?

References