![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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):
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)
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).
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)
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)
"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)
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). [1]
References
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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):
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)
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).
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)
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)
"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)
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). [1]
References