Talk:Druk (disambiguation)/Archive

Wiki for Drukpa
I suggest that since there are so much information on the Drukpa order. Why not you create a Wiki indepently for yourself, like Rangjung Yeshe, then there is no need to waste time discussing with those who are not really in the lineage and just quoting from all over. I went through your discussion, I believe there is much more than just debating with people not familiar with the problems faced by the Drukpa and yet they feel that these problems should be discussed openly and let outsiders judge. I look forward to seeing an indepedent Wiki with information provided by the enlightened masters and followers of the Drukpa Order. Looking forward to that development. To Tobden, Chokyi Nangwa and Karma Choden, you can use your time more productively to develop your own wiki, don't waste your time here. JNawangD (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't read the discussion very carefully, because Jigme already said he decided to start his own wiki. Wikipedia is the place where things are discussed openly and people can judge for themselves, so if that makes you uncomfortable then you are indeed wasting your time here.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JNawangD, we have just started with Drukpa Wiki, but the full set up may take about 1 week before others can log in to submit information. However, this will be moderated by an assigned group, so that Dharma will not become drama (quoting from one of the teachings by His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa). We appreciate your comments and if possible, can you email us the Rangjung Yeshe Wiki link? I want to recommend you the latest post by Holiness at http://www.drukpa.org/news/2008/080426_kathmandu.html. We want to thank Sylvain1972 for taking us through an extremely interesting spiritual adventure on Wikipedia and through a mind exercise. The latest blog on www.drukpa.org answered our doubts. My best to all!JigmeTobden (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for your blog. Personally, I don't consider talking about problems honestly to be "drama." No one who is acting well with good intentions has anything to hide, after all. I think it was helpful in this case, and made the article much better and more clear. I respect the prerogative of the Drukchen to change the name of the Drukpa lineage in Tibet, and I understand that he may have good reasons for doing so. However, it is natural and to be expected that people will notice and ask questions about it. His blog post on the subject clears the matter up very well. Thank you for your efforts as well.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Drukpa
It is generally accepted that the Drukpa school is part of the Kagyu lineage. I have provided multiple citations to demonstrate that this is so. User JigmeTobden is continually removing them. If certain factions of the Drukpa school do not consider themselves to be Kagyu, I have to objection to the inclusion of this POV in the article. However, it seems that JigmeTobden will not permit the conventionally accepted understanding to be mentioned, regardless of the legitimate citations of reputable sources. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sylvain, I am however somewhat interested in the "translated directly from Tibetan" sources that JigmeTobden mentions that he believes indicate it is not a Kagyu lineage. As another historical aside, the Bhutanese royal family and many prominent Drukpa lamas in Bhutan have long enjoyed a very close relationship with high lamas from the Karma Kagyu lineage such as the 16th Karmapa, although not proof, it would seem to lend credence to the idea that many Drukpa consider themselves Kagyu. Changchub (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Kagyu" has always been applied to Tibetan Buddhist lineages where the main lineages of instruction and practice are those of the Six Yogas of Naropa and the Mahamudra of Saraha/Maitripa/Etc. This clearly applies to the Drukpa Kagyu. The literal meaning of the word "Kagyu" is not relevant. Furthermore many Drukpa Kagyu lamas CALL THEMSELVES "Drukpa Kagyu." Why else would Tsoknyi Rinpoche call his organization the "Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project?" He calls himself a "Drukpa Kagyu" lama on his own website. There is a long passage in the Drukpa nun Tenzin Palmo's book Reflections on a Mountain Lake where she describes an inner voice telling her that she was a Kagyupa and her teacher Khamtrul Rinpoche as a "Drukpa Kagyu" lama. Furthermore, the official website of the Government of Bhutan lists the state religion as "Drukpa Kagyu." That is how they identify themselves. Another Drukpa master, Dorzong Rinpoche, has a section of his website called "Drukpa Kagyu Lineage.". Here is another Drukpa master, Dru-gu Choegyal Rinpoche, who calls himself "Drukpa Kagyu."


 * All of this contridicts DrukpafrmBhutan's assertion that Drukpas reject the designation "Kagyu." The recent editors from Drukpa Publications have been ignoring that point. It seems more accurate to say that the Gyalwang Drukpa rejects the term "Kagyu" for reasons of his own. Not only have they been trying to substitute an unsubstantiated revisionist agenda, they have been trying to censor out the long-established information commonly accepted by most authorities and laypeople alike. The article should really be moved back to "Drukpa Kagyu" for that matter. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As you claim that you should be having the NPOV, we are really surprised to say that "the article should really be moved back to "Drukpa Kagyu" for that matter" - are you declaring that you too do not want to accept other views? Then Wikipedia is only for the "widely accepted" information but not the "unheard" and the "yet-to-be-known", isn't it? As you said that we should not be removing your claims which are supported by books written by some masters in the last century, and that we are only permitted to voice a different angle. If Wikipedia is a place whereby newcomers have to defend their information, then it would be quite pointless to put information on Wikipedia when other voices are overwhelmed by the majority. We clearly see that Wikipedia was not set up for this reason. We have even undone DrukpafromBhutan's version to give you Mr. Sylvain a fair place for working very hard to get source to defend your stance. We shall also be providing the sources. JigmeTobden (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not create any of the wikipedia policies about what content is acceptable for inclusion. You may read about them here: Verifiability and here: Fringe theories. You will see that Wikipedia is in fact not for the "unheard" and "yet-to-be-known." Both fall under the category of original research and as such are not permitted. Also, I mentioned to Tony Duff of the Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project that you believe they don't represent the Drukpa school. He stated that he has a good relationship with the Drukchen and would like to speak to your regarding this. If you provide an email address, I will forward it to him. I appreciate the fact that you are interested in working constructively on this article with respect to the conventions of Wikipedia. Sylvain1972 ([[User

talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We would be happy to hear from Lotsawa Tony Duff and he can send an email to me at xxxx. JigmeTobden (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am from Bhutan and we are the follower of the Drukpa Lineage, as such I wish to clarify that in our religion text, in our websites and words of prominent Lamas(such as all Jekhenpos(head of monastic body))and History Books of Bhutan states that the state religion in Bhutan is known as “Drukpa Kargyud “and not “Drukpa Kagyu”. We never learned our state religion as Kagyu. Please know the difference between “Kargyud” and “Kagyu”. In Preliminary practice by 8th Gyalwang Drukpa Kunsig Choenang (The chariot of Grace) it is clearly mentioned in the preface. page no 17 3rd stanza  says  I bow to the precious white lineage (Kargyud Lineage)

And in the 4th stanza says, I bow to the precious Kargyud Lineage, And in 5th stanza says, I bow to the precious Gurus of the Kargyud Lineage.

Of course it might be true that the Bhutanese royal family and many prominent Drukpa lamas in Bhutan have enjoyed close relationship with high lamas from the Karma Kagyu lineage such as the 16th Karmapa, But it does not mean we consider ourselves Kagyu. Dalai Lama respects Pope and has good relationship, does that mean all the Tibetans are Christen? Besides we respect and also enjoy a good relation with high lamas of all the other traditions too, Though we are Firmly Dongyud Pelden Drukpa and recognize only the Je Khenpo the representative of Shabdrung Rinpoche as Head of the Lineage in Bhutan and His Holiness the twelfth Gyalwang Drukpa as head of the all Drukpa lineage In Tibeat, Ladakh, Grsha, Kinnaur, Ladakh, and west Bengal, Sikkim etc. Thsese categorization of four major kagyu and eight lesser by  Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa, has never been acknowledged by us and other lineages. Furthermore I wish to state that, though Lingre Kagyu is mentioned as the one of the eight lesser Kagyu the Drukpa lineage is not mentioned in the categorization at all. It is not right for you write that “the Gyalwang Drukpa rejects the term "Kagyu" for reasons of his own.” H.H Gyalwang Drukpa being the Head of the Drukpa Lineage, we the people of our country and followers of Drukpa Lineage from all over world don’t want him to be disrespected that way,please Desist from further disrespectful writings about H.H.Gyalwang Drukpa.

Thanks,choki Nangwa from Bhutan


 * No disrespect intended, but I have a few problems with just changing things to a Kargyud rendering.


 * 1) Are you suggesting we also remove the statement "...is a major sect of the Kagyu school of Buddhism" ?
 * 2) The two citations used currently with the alternative rendering are for the Kagyu representation and lineage history. So just changing kagyu to kargyud but leaving those two citations incorrectly attributes the sources. We can't do that. Maybe we need to include more views instead of less here but we can't just remove one view because you don't like it.
 * 3) To include the kargyud alternative here we need a different citation that discusses that usage. The ngondro text introduction you mention may be fine, but even better would be a scholarly piece that discusses the history of that usage and how it relates to kagyu. Do you have any citations like that?
 * 4) In texts that discuss the major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, I've seen Kargyud simply listed as an alternative for Kagyu. Not an alternative spelling for sure, since Kagyu is a shortening of "four lineages" and kargyud refers to "white robes" but taxonomically equivalent. Some western scholars also describe the Kamtsang as the Karma Kargyud. But doing searches I find three times as many using the English rendering Kagyu instead of Kargyud to refer to both lineages.
 * 5) The current lineage views may differ from the doxography suggested by middle age lineage holders and we must consider that. If the modern Drukpa lineage in Bhutan is descended from the same line of transmission of the Kamtsang (from Gampopa yes?) that's relevant for a taxonomy. What did the lineage holders of each tradition consider themselves or terms used to describe themselves hundreds of years ago? I'm fine including a discussion of how the traditions described themselves over time instead of suggesting that there is only one correct taxonomy.
 * For now I'm going to change it to include both but I'm guessing we need more scholarship? - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already presented a great deal of evidence that many many famous Drukpa Kagyu lamas consider themselves Kagyu, and not in the sense of "white robes," in the sense of the "the lineage of the oral transmission" of Gampopa, Milarepa, Marpa, Naropa, etc. That is the point that you refuse to acknowledge. I never suggested that the Drukpa lineage is part of the Karma Kagyu, or under the authority of the Gyalwa Karmapa, because I certainly agree with you that it is not. It seems that you are conflating "Kagyu" and "Karma Kagyu," which is incorrect. I said nothing disrespectful of the Drukchen - I just pointed out that while he doesn't seem to use the term Kagyu, many other Drukpas do use it. I don't care if we leave out the "four great and eight minor" formulation. I am even willing to include a mention of the fact that some Drukpas do not consider themselves Kagyu, although we haven't seen any evidence of that except personal testimonials on this talk page and the conspicuous absence of the term on drukpa.org. But as I have shown, it is simply untrue that no Drukpas consider themselves Kagyu, because clearly many of them do. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To user Sylvain1972. We thank you for not considering 'Drukpa' as a part of Karma Kagyu. But not everyone is like you. A series of negative exchanges has taken place with Tony Duff. At the end, we don't think anything positive can result form these exchanges. While we shall continue to work for the lineage, despite being called "small-minded", "blind" and "arrogant" by Mr. Duff, as there are too many precious masters and their activities that need our support, we pray for your success on your spiritual path. We are also surprised to see you discussing this on the Buddhist Blog (lioncity) where you seem to have thought of us being political. The reason why we are going through this exercise is to get ourselves out of the political mud. However, as everyone has the right to pose any opinion here, we respect yours. As His Holiness and many great masters say, "If there is no one to make you angry, you cannot practice Bodhicitta." All the best! JigmeTobden (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think very highly of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage, I would like to see it flourish, and I am sympathetic to your concerns if the problem is Karma Kagyu people meddling in Drukpa Kagyu affairs. That would be very unfortunate. If some Drukpas want to stop using the "Kagyu" name as a result, that is unfortunate but understandable. In this day and age everything is discussed openly and publicly, and I think that is the best approach. That is why we cannot just erase "Kagyu" from the Drukpa article, as if no one was going to notice and wonder what happened. But we can say, "the Gyalwang Drukpa has decided to stop using the term Kagyu to protect the independence of the Drukpa school." And there is no problem with that, if that is the truth. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We thank you for your understanding. But really, these are issues that up to lineage masters, His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa and other Rinpoches, whether they want to make this statement. When they are ready to make this statement together, we will definitely update you. There are already a group of scholars, including some Khenpos, giving proofs of 2nd Gyalwang Drukpa Kunga Paljor's statement on "Kargyud". Anyway, we appreciate your efforts and from this exercise, we have actually decided started our own Wiki. Rinpoches whose advices were sought after our "active exchanges" with you and later on some unpleasant but useful exchanges with Mr. Duff, had advised that we only have to follow His Holiness's direction and keep calm. The Drukpa Lineage is a beautiful lineage that is full of enlightened yogis. We as followers of the lineage are worried and cannot understand how Buddhist masters could prey on other lineages. We don't want to call names, as this may bring to another "XX-Issue" or "XX Controversy" or rather "Free Drukpa". Mr. Duff says that "Your lineage is dying, even the Gyalwang Drukpa says so. If you want it to survive, you might have to start including people who know what the problems are and who are willing to speak about them. Tibetans and their blind-eyed supporters--I believe you are included--are not going to address those problems, precisely because they are so blind." You know, we were very saddened by his remarks, because we have followed these masters as we believe in their enlightened qualities. Whatever it is, we as followers of the Drukpa Lineage, are proud of the 800-year legacy and we are going to support, whatever happens and whatever it takes, even if everyone says we are "blind", "arrogant" and possibly stupid. I want to propose to take out this part of the discussion and hope that whatever exchanges we shall have shall be in the spirit of "Live to Love". My best to you and your spiritual endeavors. In case you are still interested to contact us, you can email me at mail@drukpa.com. JigmeTobden (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I look forward to hearing more when more information is available, and wish you the best for your projects. Cheers, Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good news, I found a good source for some of your statements about the name. I also found a helpful blog entry by the Drukchen, so we can include that too. I think these changes will make things more clear - thank you for bringing this to my attention and improving the article. Cheers, Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kagyu vs. Kargyu
In his 1970 article "Golden Rosaries of the Bka' brgyud schools" [republished in Smith E,. Gene; Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau, Wisdom Publications, Boston 2001. ISBN 0-86171-179-3], E. Gene Smith, discusses this (p. 40):


 * A note is in order regarding the two forms Dkar brgyud pa and Bka’ brgyud pa. The term  Bka’ brgyud pa simply applies to  any line of transmission of an esoteric teaching  from teacher to disciple. We can properly speak of a Jo nang  Bka’ brgyud pa or Dge ldan Bka’ brgyud pa for the Jo nang pa and Dge lugs pa sects.  The adherents of the sects that practice the teachings centring around the Phyag rgya chen po and the Nā ro chos drug are properly refered to as the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pa because these teachings were all transmitted through Sgam po pa. Similar teachings and practices centering around the Ni gu chos drug are distinctive of the Shangs pa Bka’ brgyud pa. These two traditions with their offshoots are often incorrectly referred to simply as Bka’ brgyud pa.


 * Some of the more careful Tibetan scholars suggested that the term Dkar brgyud pa be used to refer to the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pa, Shangs pa Bka’ brgyud pa and a few minor traditions transmitted by Nā ro pa, Mar pa, Mi la ras pa, or Ras chung pa but did not pass through Sgam po pa. The term Dkar brgyud pa refers to the use of the white cotton meditation garment by all these lineages. This complex is what is normally known, inaccuratly, as the Bka’ brgyud pa. Thu’u kwan  Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma sums up the matter: “In some later ’Brug pa texts the written form ‘Dkar brgyud’ indeed appears, because Mar pa, Mi la, Gling ras, and others wore only white cotton cloth. Nevertheless, it is fine if [they] are all called Bka’ brgyud.” At Thu’u kwan’s suggestion, then, we will side with convention and use the term “Bka’ brgyud.”

E. Gene Smith is of course one of the world’s leading scholars on Tibetan history, who is especially respected by the Tibetans themselves. Incidentally he was a student of Drukpa Thuksey Rinpoche and Khenpo Noryang ~ the Gyalwang Drukchen's own teachers.

Specifically the article points out:“That the term Dkar brgyud pa be used to refer to the Dwags po Bka’ brgyud pa, Shangs pa Bka’ brgyud pa and a few minor traditions transmitted by Nā ro pa, Mar pa, Mi la ras pa, or Ras chung pa but did not pass through Sgam po pa.” - in other words it seems “Kargyu” (white lineage) is not exclusive to the Drukpa lineage. It is also abundantly clear from the article that the Drukpa lineage is considered part of the Marpa Kagyu / Dagpo Kagyu tradition.

Chris Fynn (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I think most of the contents of this page should be moved to a page called Drukpa Kagyu since the un-qualified word "Drukpa" more often means "Bhutanese".

Also since the words དཀར་བརྒྱུད dkar brgyud "white lineage" and བཀའ་བརྒྱུད bka' brgyud "oral lineage" are more or less homo-phonic in most dialects of Tibetan (and Dzongkha), in English why can't we simply use "Kagyu" or "Kagyü" for both so argument can be avoided? In the Tibetan or Wylie we can give both spellings - as appropriate. The notion that the Drukpa Kagyu tradition as a spiritul lineage or tradition is not considered part of the overall broad Kagyu tradition is ludicrous. If there is any doubt or confusion about this, kindly refer to the religious history called ཆོས་འབྱུང་བསྟན་པའི་པདྨ་རྒྱས་པའི་ཉིན་བྱེད། chos 'byung btan pa'i padma rgyas pa'i nyin byed -  commonly known as the འབྲུག་པའི་ཆོས་འབྱུང་། 'brug pa'i chos 'byung or Reliigios History of the Drukpas - written by [Pema Karpo| Kunkhyen Padma Karpo], the greatest scholar of the tradition. He uses the term Kagyu (བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ bka' brgyud) referring to his own tradition. In a recent edition of that book published in Bhutan (KMT Press, 2005) the sections in the last part of the book run as follows: དྭགས་པོ་ལྷ་རྗེའི་སྐོར།, སྒམ་པོའི་གདན་རབས་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, ཙལ་པ་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, ཀརྨ་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, ཕག་དྲུག་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, སྟག་ལུང་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, གཡའ་བཟང་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, ཁྲོ་ཕུ་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, དམར་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།, འབྲི་གུང་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྐོར།. The Kagyu in Drukpa Kagyu is not spelled dkar brgyud in this instance and it clear it is included with the other Kagyu traditions descending from Gampopa. Of course since the time of Tsangpa Gyare the "Drukpa Kagyu" (however you want to spell it) has also had an identity distinct from other Kagyu sub-schools (as they all have from each other). If considered as some kind of corporate entity the Drukpa are of course entirely separate and independent from e.g. the Karma Kagyu and the Drikung Kagyu. There is traditionally no legal head or heirarch of the entire Kagyu tradition in the way the pope is the head of all Roman Catholics. Indeed, the Drukpa Kagyu *itself* has several distinct and seperate historical divisions, sub schools branches - and with regard to each other several of these are clearly still independent and distinct entities - not subordinate to one another. Without being disrespectful to anyone, I dont't think it can be fairly claimed that there is one head of all the Drukpa lineages ~ and such references should probably be removed. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We understand that you are a western scholar with special interest in Bhutan. If you thread through the above discussion, it has been said quite clearly that His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa had called for the change to "Drukpa Lineage" due to several reasons (the ones you see in the main page are self-explanatory). The First Gyalwang Drukpa Tsangpa Gyare was the founder of the lineage and the present Gyalwang Drukpa is considered as the head of the spiritual lineage. We are interested to know on what basis you are saying that "I don't think it can be fairly claimed that there is one head of all the Drukpa lineages ~ and such references should probably be removed." There seems to be an effort to disharmonise and weaken the Drukpa School, sadly by many, We hope you are not one of them. Despite the concerted efforts by many concerned high lamas of the lineage in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet wishing to do something to unite the lineage, scholars like yourself cannot seem to let go of the past struggles that the Drukpa Lineage had. We are sure that living in Bhutan yourself you would have plenty of access to many of our living masters, who have actually been monitoring and are behind the editing of this wikipedia section and our very own Drukpa Wikipedia which is under construction. Your historical facts may be correct, but we feel that fairness must be given to the present situation if we all (I am sure yourself included) wish to ensure that the 800 over years of legacy of the Drukpa Lineage continues to live, untainted by political strains and spiritual "geonocites". Tony Duff's recent comment that the Drukpa Lineage is dying hurt so many people in the lineage (including several Rinpoches and Khenpos), it's very strange that someone like him who is so knowledgeable and so learned and who is a director of two organizations bearing the name of Drukpa would make such a great disppointing remark; and even if he truly thinks that the lineage is at the verge of dying, why not be encouraging and help out without aggression and all the negative remarks. Again, we hope that you are not in his club. One question to you as an experienced scholar, do we need to be ever dogmatic about name and label sake that even the spiritual head of the lineage cannot call for a "rebranding" (as commented by Sylvain72 who discussed this broadly in a Buddhist Forum), after all (forgive me if I am wrong) at the time of Tilopa and his contemporaries, the different names of the Tibetan lineages did not exist. Some lineages disappeared and some lineages renamed and reinvented themselves. Ultimately, is it not the lineage holders who have the right to reform their lineage and take it to greater heights. For your information, His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa has been working tirelessly to rebuild the upper Drukpa Lineage everywhere in the Himalayas (Sikkim and Lahaul included), besides helping H.E. Taktsang Rinpoche who now lives in Lhasa, without any means to come out, to maintain and reconstruct all the falling monastic buildings in Ladakh. He is also financially helping the reconstruction of a number of monasteries in Central and Eastern Tibet, without the wish of letting anyone aware of this. On top of this, as he told us the other day that "If my life is not used for benefiting others in the best ways that others will be connected with spirituality in modern day's definition, i.e. that I cannot come down from my throne and I have to live with all the traditional protocols, without providing a chance for myself or others to be mutually connected, such as having a casual chat, going on a walking pilgrimage (which he took 200 over nuns and 100 over monks, with a few lay students, on a 700km walking pilgrimage and unpublicised) and so on, there is no point for me to live in this world." Because of his great love for the lineage and his great appreciation for those followers who support him in any way possible, we believe he is about the only Holiness or lineage head to manage his own website so that people can be connected in one way or another directly with him, and spiritually inspired one way or another (www.drukpa.org) by his practical way of leading a life. We really don't understand sometimes why we are here writing so much and spending so much time arguing (or some people said "discussing") about the direction of the Drukpa Lineage with so many people who don't seem to want to see the lineage flourish. When there is so much trouble in this world, and a chance of meeting such a genuine, honest and down-to-earth master is so rare, we just cannot believe that we are here writing so much and I am still writing. Anyway, personally I really feel that this is a great disappointment and a great letdown to a lineage of great yogis. Khenchen Rinpoche at Tango Monastery said that if you look at the different lineages, you can't find a lineage which has that many enlightened yogis. In every place that the Drukpa Lineage flourished, enlightened yogis were found. From Gyalwa Gotsangpa to Tripon Pema Choegyal, from the founder Tsangpa Gyare to the lineage masters of today, so many great teachings have been given and so many beings have been helped (myself included). While the Drukpa Lineage is reforming to prevent threats and reinventing to be on track with today's rhythm, it is unthinkable that anyone who is genuinely concerned about the lineage or supporter of the lineage could even think of discouraging such a change. No wonder, His Holiness and our many Rinpoches often feel hopeless in the situation that others force them into, no wonder! Sorry for my abruptness. I wouldn't be surprised that my long comment will be very much objected by many of you, but I have spoken my views and that of many others who are here with me. JigmeTobden (tal k) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jigme. I hope I didn't offend you or anyone else - I'm certainly not at all looking to cause disharmony - or even for an argument.
 * My first suggestion was simly that the page be titled "Drukpa Kagyu" or "Drukpa Kargyu" if you like since plain "Drukpa" these days more often than not means "Bhutanese". What do you and others think of this?


 * My second suggestion was that we don't actually need to distinguish between འབྲུག་པ་བཀའ་བརྒྱུད ’brug pa bka' brgyud and འབྲུག་པ་དཀར་བརྒྱུད ’brug pa dkar brgyud in the English transcription since the two names are homophonic to most western ears. I don't particularly care how people want to write it: Kagyu, Kagyü, Kagyud, Kargyü, Kargyu, or Kargyud - I was just suggesting to use a single transcription for both.


 * Of course keep the distinction between bka' brgyud and kar brgyud in the Wylie transliteration and explain the difference somewhere later in the article. Since the "r" in དཀར་ dkar is often not vocalized [On other hand, in some dialects, the "r" in "rgyud" may be vocalized especially when it is the second syllable of a compound word]. Actually I don't want to make a big thing of this at all - my reason for pointing out  that a single transcription could be used for both bka' brgyud and kar brgyud was so that people don't have to quarrel about which is "correct" - which seemd a totally pointless argument to me.


 * However, if the consensus is to transcribe the two differently I'm OK with that. Whatever the case the final syllable one way since that part is the same in both names. Right now you have gyu in one case and gyud in the other and that doesn't make any sense.


 * Concerning my words: "I don't think it can be fairly claimed that there is one head of all the Drukpa lineages" - again I certainly do not want to offend anyone, but I have never heard anyone in Bhutn refer to Gyalwang Drukchen as the spiritual head of the Bhutanese branch of the Drukpa Kagyu or as the as the head of all the Drukpa Kagyu. Of course Gyalwang Drukchen Rinpoche is greatly respected by most Bhutanese - and I'm sure revered by many ~ but to my perhaps faulty perception, that is not quite the same thing as being "the head of all the Drukpa lineages". Of course just because I haven't heard something doesn't make it not true. However one does not see Gyalwang Drukchen's name in the Ngondro or lineage prayers generally used in Bhutan which is not what one would expect if he were considered the spiritual head. OTOH the present Je Khenpo of Bhutan at one time studied at Drukchen's monastery in Darjeeling - so I don't think any one can fairly say these two branches are in any way opposed to each other today.


 * Concerning history - in an encyclopedia article isn't it only right to mention historical divisions where there is clear evidence such divisions existed and where these clearly impacted the development of the Drukpa tradition? Of course wen writing about such things we need to try our best to do so from a npov. No one I'm sure would write about these past events here out of any desire to reignite old divisions or to try and "disharmonise and weaken the Drukpa School"


 * With all good wishes - Chris Fynn (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are changes that we need to acknowledge, even if we want to do soemthing as NPOV, we should also be tracking the recent development. Someone in Bhutan would like to be in contact with you, if you would leave your contact, it would be appreciated. JigmeTobden (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On your first point perhaps a section "Recent Developments" or "Contemporary Developments" should be added to the article and some things moved there. That way the the two could be more clearly distinguished. Secondly, I may be contacted via the "E-mail this user" link next to my user page.
 * BTW I suspect the idea of not using "Kagyu" in the name of the lineage is mostly to do with others considering or representing their own lineage or branch of the Kagyu lineage as the Kagyu lineage or school and the understandable wish to differentiate the Drukpa tradition.


 * Chris Fynn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a section on recent developments would be great, but it needs to be based on objective outside sources. If such sources are not provided, how can we acknowledge the changes?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you normally ask the Chairperson and Board Members of Company ABC headoffice to provide "objective outside sources" to justify the company's decision to change the course of business or mission statement? Are you saying that when Naropa decides to pass his Six Ornaments to Marpa who in turn passed to Ngokton Choku Dorje whose later generation passed it to Second Gyalwang Drukpa claiming that the latter was indeed the authentic reincarnation of Naropa, external "objective" sources needed to be consulted? Don't you think it is a great insult to a group of genuine masters belonging to a lineage of over 800 years' old that it need to seek outside sources for permission to decide what it should be doing to upkeep and protect their lineage? Are outsiders who are going to provide "objective outside sources" "shareholders" of the Drukpa Lineage?JigmeTobden (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jigme, Contributors don't necessarily have to be "shareholders" in the Drukpa lineage in order to have studied it or know enough about it to write an informed article. IMO the purpose of an encyclopedia article on the Drukpa Kagyu is to try and provide objective, verifiable, factual  information on the tradition (history, practices, influential figures, doctrines, etc.) in a summary form from an informed but neutral point of view. I don't think this is an appropriate platform to help the lineage re-brand itself; or a place for members to try and "upkeep and protect their lineage"; or to try and promote rather than simply state the beliefs of the tradition. I'm sure your intentions are good, but if this page is being edited by a follower of the Drukpa lineage with the intention of "promoting the interests the Drukpa lineage" I think that would likely fall under "conflict of interest" editing.  Chris Fynn (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jigme, I'm afraid I understand neither the tenor nor the content of your reply. I addressed myself to you, in addition to the article's other editors. Are you the Chairperson and Board Members of the Drukpa lineage? Are you a group of genuine masters? If you are a member of same, I will have an additional reply. Otherwise, I must repeat my request that the article be edited on the basis of objective outside sources. By "outside" I mean sources outside of Wikipedia, e.g. not the talk page.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nat, just because we care about what is said with only one-sided story does not mean that we sit on the board, what are you trying to push us to say or put here? Chris's explanation is at least more objective and clearer. We have intention to put forth the facts unknown to others, as many books have not been translated and new ones have yet been made available. Whatever that has been quoted so far from the so-called "objective" sources are printed books interpreted/misinterpreted by others. We said that it's a pity that most "facts" are based on what majority say and not the truth. When Chris said there is a conflict of interest, does that mean that we should be left to keep silent and let others put whatever they wish based on sources "deemed" to be "objective".
 * JigmeTobden (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jigme, If English language sources are not available you can of course cite Tibetan language sources ~ but they should be cited. It is not good enough to simply state "We have intention to put forth the facts unknown to others, as many books have not been translated and new ones have yet been made available." - actually I think that if you look hard enough in academic journals, PhD Thesis, and so on you will find that over the years quite a lot of work related to the Drukpa tradition has been translated and written. Certainly there are more than enough sound objective sources on which to base an article like this. You should not simply try to claim all this work misinterprets the tradition without citing concrete evidence to back up your claim. After all many of the scholars who have produced this academic work have done so in conjunction with lamas who are part of the tradition.
 * Chris Fynn (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jigme, my point was that I never said that I would not take the word of Drukpa lamas or religious leaders as a source for this article. I'm saying I will not take your word as a source, since that's not how Wikipedia works. I agree with Chris Fynn that, if English sources are not available, you can certainly cite Tibetan sources.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I'd like to point out that this page should be moved to "Drukpa Kagyu" since the un-qualified word "Drukpa" more often means "Bhutanese". If you don't know this it can easily be ascertained. Please look at 'brug pa in the Rangjung Yeshe dictionary and in other Tibetan Dictionaries (e.g type in 'brug pa at |THDL's Online Tibetan to English Dictionary and Translation Tool)- the primary meaning is almost always "Bhutanese" and the secondary "Drukpa Kagyu". While historically the second meaning may have come first, this is just not the case today. Typical primary definitions are: 'brug yul gyi mi; native of bhutan; 1. Bhutanese, 2. Drukpa Kagyu. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am of two minds on this matter. The sources above are referring to "drukpa" as a Tibetan or Dzongkha word, yes? They have two (or more) competing senses of "Drukpa", and it doesn't surprise me that the one meaning Bhutanese might be more common. But, in English, of course, we usually say "Bhutanese" in reference to the country, and nothing to do with dragons at all, so it seems like "Drukpa" in English would more commonly mean Drukpa Kagyu.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nat, English is an official language and very widely spoken in Bhutan since it is the main language of instruction in schools above primary level. So right away you have a lot of English speakers who use Drukpa primarily in the sense of "Bhutanese". Tibetans also primarily use it in that sense. Even English language written sources on Tibetan Buddhism rarely use un qualified "Drukpa" for "Drukpa Kagyu". The National Airline of Bhutan is called "Druk Air", the Bhutanese monarch the "Druk Gyalpo" and so on. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The origination of "Drukpa" came from the nine dragons witnessed by the First Gyalwang Drukpa Tsangpa Gyare. Bhutan was named as the Land of Thunder Dragons after Phajo Druggom Shigpo, a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare, went to Bhutan and converted Bhutan into Druk Yul, subsequently, Drukpa Kunleg, the Divine Madman (a disciple of the Second Gyalwang Drukpa Kunga Paljor), made the name "Drukpa" more popular. Later on, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal united Bhutan. Despite every of our effort, there seems to be a continuing attempt by Chris Fynn to put the Drukpa Lineage in a very difficult position to strengthen itself and to pull itself out of the problems that others have put it into for the last couple of hundreds' years. You can call it "Drukpa Kagyud", "Drukpa Kargyud" or "Drukpa Lineage" - but doesn't it seem strange that this has to be decided by outsiders other than the key masters of the lineage. The word "Drukpa", way before Bhutan, originated from the nine dragons in Namdruk, near Lhasa, which happened in the year 1206 - let's not forget that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JigmeTobden (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Head of the Kagyu"
On a related topic, I've wondered about something I've read, that one of the innovations of the Tibetan government-in-exile has been the attempt to centralise authority in each of the "four schools" of Tibetan Buddhism (i.e. Gelug, Kagyü, Sakya, and Nyingma) in the person of one leader per school. Before that, Sakya and Gelug already had leaders, I believe, and the Karmapa was seen as the head of Karma Kagyü, which arguably made him something of a primus inter pares for Kagyü as a whole, but certainly not a hierarch of the non-Karma groups. Then, the government-in-exile gave the 16th Karmapa the title of "head of Kagyü". I wonder what the reaction to this from the Drukpa Kagyü people was? I can assume that this declaration was completely without force inside of Tibet itself, and probably was completely ignored inside of Bhutan, but what about the Druk Kargyudpas in the various exile communities?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No comments. Political issues are to be answered by politicians. The Drukpa Lineage is a spiritual lineage of yogis.

JigmeTobden (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move to Drukpa Kagyu. JPG-GR (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have formally requested moving this article to "Drukpa Kagyu" as that is what the religious tradition to which this article refers is called in almost all academic and third party sources as well as in most sources in Tibetan and Dzongkha languages. The most common use of the simple word "Drukpa" is for 'the People of Bhutan', a 'Bhutanese person' or 'Bhutanese'. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We think it's better to add "Lineage" after "Drukpa", if you so insist. The people of Bhutan or Bhutanese are also called "Druk-pa" because they mostly follow the Drukpa order (see: http://www.geocities.com/bhutanwomen/ata_glance.html) and not because they became known as "Drukpa" for no reason. Since the arrival of Phajo Druggom Shigpo and Drukpa Kunleg, and subsequently the unification of Bhutan under Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, the Bhutanese became known as "Drukpa" as well. However the ORIGIN of the name traces back to Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje who founded the lineage in 1206. We all do not think that this is disputable. There is a group of people here in Bhutan and elsewhere who wonder the reason and motivation behind your insistence, despite the historical trace of the origination of the word "Drukpa", since the founding of the lineage in 1206. It is also quite interesting for us to see your continuing attempt to discredit whatever we have put. We also have a question about the so-called "Third-Party Source" in that isn't all the Tibetan texts written by the masters of the lineage, plus what if the masters today wish to "modify" the names, is it subjected to the scrutiny and rejection by outsiders? It is also quite strange that you continuously doubt the source, whether the websites were coming from His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa or not. Kindly check the sites. As you have suggested and we too agree that "On your first point perhaps a section "Recent Developments" or "Contemporary Developments" should be added to the article and some things moved there" - this should be something to be seriously considered. If worst case and in the case that you and perhaps a few others continue to press for "Kagyud", etc, then to be fair to all parties, this site should be mirroring in all instances with "Drukpa Kargyud", "Drukpa Kagyud", "Drukpa" and "Drukpa Lineage" and that the development should also be traced. We also note that you have made changes on "Gyalwang Drukpa" by adding "Kagyud", perhaps you should reconsider that as a respect to His Holiness (check his web). If a direct source is not good enough, what is a 3rd party source good for? A direction set by the leader should be respected at least and that what the majority said should not be the truth, and if the 3rd party source it self is politically motivated or biased, shouldn't this also be taken into consideration. Your insistence and persistence in this matter show that you have great interest in the subject, we appreciate this. From whichever angle you are taking, kindly be reasonable to the wishes of the lineage masters who are trying to keep alive a spiritual legacy that has been around since the nine dragons flew up into the sky.

JigmeTobden (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have mixed feelings about this move request, as I have expressed on this talk page previously. On one hand, I don't think that it is completely necessary to make Drukpa a disambiguation page, since I believe that English usage of the term clearly favours the Buddhist sense. That said, I suspect that the term "Drukpa Kagyu" is likely more common in the literature than "Drukpa" alone. I think that it might be reasonable to make a compromise by moving the page to Drukpa lineage, which would specify which sense of "Drukpa" we mean without including "Kagyu" in the title. I can understand why "Kagyu" may have become a sensitive term in this context of late.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read your discussions with much interest and feel that it would be a reasonable compromise to refer to the Drukpa lineage. I am not in favour of moving the page to "Drukpa Kagyu", for many of the reasons cited in the talk session above.Jigme Choedzin (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We should all note that Chris Fynn has been putting links to prove his point, despite all of your efforts. For outsiders, he looks like someone having an interest in this. I support Drukpa Lineage and leave "Drukpa" as it is. I am also not in favor of moving the page to "Drukpa Kagyu", for many of the reasons cited in the talk session above, even if Chris Fynn continues to add whatever links. JNawangD (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support "Drukpa lineage" and NOT in favour of moving the page to "Drukpa kagyu". And yes leave "Drukpa" as it is.i strongly support Jigme Tobden's point.karma, Bhutan K.choden (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.