Talk:Vajravārāhī

Welcome

Is this for section Further reading?

• [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.131 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Austerlitz. Thank you for pointing out this source. As you will see I have made some references to the work and included a quote from it. Please let me know if you approve of what I have done. Cheers and all best wishes for the festive season and through the New Year! Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear John Hill. Thank you and the same best wishes to you.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.107 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Male

According to buddhist research center the tulku of Dorje Pakmo is male. bsam sdings rdo rje phag mo sprul sku skye brgyud ( b. ) I don't understand. does this refer to the physical body or to the mental form?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.192 (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think this msut be due to a simple mistake on the website. Further down the same page you will notice she is referred to as "the paramount female incarnation lineage of central tibet". John Hill (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The text says *

     the paramount female incarnation lineage of central tibet

I think this refers to the lineage, and not to her as a person. Of course there can be male avatars working for the great goddess, and female avatars working for Shiva, for example.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.107 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Past and present

"It is a Geluk Ani gompa (or nunnery) - which also housed some monks." Who says so?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.94 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Power-places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim's Guide, (1988) p. 268. Keith Dowman. ISBN 0-7102-1370-0 says: "This Ani Gompa (some monks also lived here) was the seat of Tibet's highest female incarnation, known as Dorje Pakmo (Demchok's consort), or Sera Kandro." Hope this is of some help. Regards, John Hill (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sera Khandro

There is another one called Sera Khandro, [2]. Who has given this same name to Dorje Pakmo? Does Keith Dowman give any reference?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.181 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! No, sorry I don't know where Dowman got this information from - but I suspect that this Sera Khandro may have been considered one of the incarnations of Dorje Pakmo - but this is only a guess on my part. If you discover anything more about it please let us all know. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

hello again! Maybe Sera Khandro means the Dakini from Sera Monastery? The Sera Khandro is mentioned -for example- on the site of Yogi Chatral Rinpoche. Greetings, Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.194 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

three more links referring to Sera Khandro:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Maybe clarity may arise by reading.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.161 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• [6] The profile of Sarah H. Jacoby says that she has got the manuscript of Sera Khandro's autobiography from Chatral Rinpoche.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.161 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sera Khandro was one of the main teachers of Dudjom Rinpoche and Chatral Rinpoche. This is a different person from Samding Dorje Phagmo. Nothing to do with Sera monastery either. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism

I have some concerns about the "Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section, which was added to several articles. Please see my comments at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#"Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen your comments and would like to know, what the ranking -in case it has been described with the right numbers- actually means. Can people thpught to be the highest in ranking command the people thought to be less high in ranking?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.194 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't know what the original author intended, but I think the only kind of ranking that we can talk about would be ranking relative levels of prestige. That means there's no chance of an objective ranking, since it's basically a matter of opinion. Some people close to the Panchen Lama have even argued in the past that the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama should be considered equals in terms of religious prestige.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added to the text:

I think this note to be okay. What's your opinion? One thing I remember in that context of ranking is that once the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama had to confirm the reincarnation of the Karmapa in cooperation. (Hope my memory is right.) But I don't actually know how to differntiate religious prestige from political prestige or power.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.161 (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bo dong

• [7] Bo-dong Pan-chen Phyogs-las rnam-rgyd (1376-1451)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.85 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• [8]

-- 88.75.208.85 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

from link no.2: "Bodong Panchen Chogley Namgyal was one of the teachers of the first Dalai Lama, Gyedun Drup, who received many teachings and empowerments from him."

• [9] "Next to the Sakya section are also the encylopedic works in over 100 volumes of Bodong Chogley Namgyal, founder of the Bodong school." Place: National Library of Bhutan, first floor.

Bodong Panchen Chogley Namgyal has played an important role in the life of Chokyi Dronma. I want to add some information given by Diemberger, one of these days.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.76 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal name

I wonder what her personal name has been. Gedun Drubs personal name, for example, was Pema Dorje. The personal name of later Buddha Shakyamuni was Siddharta [10].

-- 88.75.200.178 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Names in Tibetan Culture.

-- 88.75.200.178 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Siddharta, Behind the Name "Means "one who has accomplished a goal", derived from Sanskrit सिद्ध (siddha) "accomplished" and अर्थ (artha) "goal". Siddharatha Gautama was the real name of Buddha."

.Life of the Buddha (Part One) 3. The Naming Ceremony

-- 88.75.75.119 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Culture"

• [11]
• [12] "Born: 1942 Birthplace: Tibet Autonomous Region, Nyemo County"
• [13]
• [14]
• [15] "Even today, the 12th Samding Dorjee Phagmo is leading the Samding monastery."
• [16]

The section "Controversies surrounding the twelfth Samding Dorje Pakmo" can be expanded; I think. What about the incarnation living in Bhutan? Is she considered to be different in numbers?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.120 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Homage

Diemberger states: "The biographer requests her protection as he embarks on his literary project:

Homage to Vajravarahi! Ultimate giver of pleasure to Heruka! Head of innumerable Dakinis, Vajra queen, mother of all Buddhas, Protector of the living beings of the auspicious eon, protect me.

............. fn3: "Heruka is a male tantric deity of the Anuttarayogatantra, often seen as a partner of Vajravarahi (Dorje Phagmo)."

I'm doubting whether to mention this on the article's page or not.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.85 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• [17]

There is a Vajravarahi Mandala, the german wikisite on Dorje Phagmo integrated it into the article. Good idea, as it seems to me right now.

-- 88.75.66.151 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, [18].

-- 88.75.86.150 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Skydancer

Allione refers in the namthar of Jomo Memo to a prophecy of Yeshe Tsogyal given for her about reincarnation who is going to build a Phagmo-Meditation Center, source being Keith Dowman's Skydancer, page 174. I don't own that book. Can somebody pleas look it up? Cheers, Austerlitz -- 88.75.204.126 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Allione (german edition): "Eine Aktivitäts-Emanation meiner Rede wird in Tsang erscheinen. Man wird sie Jomo nennen und sie wird ein Phagmo-Meditations-Zentrum gründen. Und die Riten der Schweinsgesichtigen werden die Welt umarmen." fn1(angegebene Quelle: Keith Dowman, Skydancer, S. 174) Phagmo bezieht sich auf Vajravarahi, die Dakini mit dem Kopf einer Muttersau, der aus der Seite ihres Hauptes heraustritt." (Allione, S. 294)

• A-YU KHA'DRO (Tsewang Dorje Paldron 1839-1953) Excerpt from Allione's book.

" He had advised her to give me the teachings of Khadro Sangwa Kundu,6 his gongter."

fn6: 6 The teaching given to Jomo Memo (1248-83) by Dorje Phagmo in the cave of Padma Sambhava. (See Dargyay, The Rise of Esoteric Buddhism in Tibet, p. 119, and biography of Jomo Memo, pp. 291-4.) This text was lost and it was not until the nineteenth century that Jamyang Khentse Wongpo discovered it as a gongter, that the teaching was available again. The text is referred to from here on in its abbreviated form, Khadro Sangdu (mKha' 'gro gSang 'dus). It is a great series of teachings on Vajra Varahi, some say a Mother Tantra, associated with the four actions or trinlay ('phrin las): calming, enriching, overawing, and destroying.

• Jomo Menmo The famous female gTértön called ‘The Lady Demoness’ "Jomo Menmo Pema Tsokyi (Jom-mo sMan-mo Padma mTsho-sKyid)"

"Yeshé Tsogyel said: "An activity emanation of my speech will appear in Tsang and she will be known as Jomo Menmo."]

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

Diemberger cites on page 236:""She [Dorje Phagmo Chokyi Dronma] then traveled to Tsagong Nesar, where she extended the meditation center of Menmogang..........""

Most probably the meditationcenter of Menmogang , where Chokyi Dronma died, was the one which has been founded by Jomo Menmo. Did Diemberger mention her? Just have to have another look at the book.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.45 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Twin reincarnation line

Diemberger p. 256 says that "Chokyi Dronma and Pal Chime Drupa established a twin reincarnation line embodying the deities Vajravarahi and Cakrasamvara."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.215 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

wylie: dPal ‘Chi med grub pa -- 88.75.95.215 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

black hat of the Samding Dorje Phagmo some story there must be.

-- 88.75.201.142 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

on systems of reincarnation Quoting Diemberger: "A full system of Bodongpa reincarnations is described in the sixteenth-century Bo dong chos 'byung, which follows the literary model of "genealogical" narrative more than that of the personal account. After outlining the life of Bodong Chogle Namgyal, the Bo dong chos 'byung has a passage that describes the appointment of his successors: his nephew occupied the seat of abbot in a number of Bodongpa monasteries while Chokyi Dronma and Pal Chime Drupa established a twin reincarnation line embodying the deities Vajravarahi and Cakrasamvara. Thus Bodong Chogle Namgyal's succession seems to have included both transmission by kin and a reincarnation line. I shall discuss here the relevant passage, from folios 18b to 26b." pages 255 ff

"The Dorje Phagmo and the Karmapa The areas of Yamdrog and Rinpung were at that time a stronghold of the Bodongpa. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, a number of connected local and spiritual masters, with shared aim of continuing the spiritual legacy not only of Bodong Chogle Namgyal and Chokyi Dronma but also of Pal Chime Drupa and Kunga Sangmo, had brought to the force a full system of reincarnation. After Kunga Sangmo's death in Thangtong Gyalpo's homeland around 1502, Chime Palsang recognized her reincarnation in the young girl Nyedra Sangmo. the Parallel male/female reincarnation system was thus established. It was based on the reenactment of the tantric couple, just as other reincarnation lines are based on the reenactment of the spiritual father-spiritual son, i.e. teacher-disciple, relationship (e.g., Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama). This system of reincarnations was not located within the tradition of Thangtong Gyalpo but rather in that of the successors of the disciples of Bodong Chogle Namgyal, who developed close links to the karmapa." pages 262 ff

this seems to be important to me, but still I do not understand, that's why I've quoted some of it here, for further reading.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.59 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yidam and tulku

This article is quite a confusion between Vajravarahi the yidam originating in India and Dorje Pakmo the Tibetan Buddhist tulku lineage. The material for the two really needs separating. --Dakinijones (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DakinijonesYes this article needs separating into two articles one on Vajravarahi / Dorje Phagmo and another on Samding Dorje Phagmo lineage. I'll see if I can do that soon. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done! Chris Fynn (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has a lot of NPOV and confused-subject problems

Tagging Jayaguru-Shishya:

The Dorje Pakmo article is troubling for a number of reasons, half of which are NPOV and half of which are that the article confuses the crucial Vajrayana meditational deity with the officially-PRC-sanctioned reincarnation known by the same name. Vajravārāhī is a form of Vajrayoginī, who is the most important deity in Tibetan Buddhism, hands-down, and appears in the Vajravārāhī form a significant portion of the time.

I removed the Chinese "spelling" because it was simply the Tibetan syllables in Chinese characters pseudo-phonetically. The Tangmi name for her must exist but I doubt very much it is "Duōjié Pàmó" spelled so that it reads "ugly woman with too many remarkable handkerchiefs". It would be a native name. Ogress _smash! 20:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification Ogress! I had no idea that it's a pseudo-phonetic spelling of the Tibetan one. I self-reverted my edit. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ogress Yes the current content of this article seems to be mainly about Samding Dorje Phagmo - the most well known of a number of female incarnation lineages in Tibet considered to be emanations/embodiments of the diety Dorje Phagmo / Vajravarahi. This really needs separating into two articles- one about the deity/yidam Dorje Phagmo and another about the incarnation lineage of Samding Dorje Phagmo. I'll try to do this. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've split the article in two (this one and Samding Dorje Phagmo). Both still need a lot of cleanup and improvement. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

CFynn To keep in with the general pattern, we should rename this page "Vajravarahi". We don't talk about Chenrezik etc. but rather Avalokitesvara.

Google Books links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: should Google Books links be included in the refs?

• Support inclusion of Google Books links in the references. This is standard operating procedure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, they are ugly, unnecessary, and make the article much harder to edit effectively when they are embedded. On top of that, they do not respond to all who click the link the same, only displaying in some countries and not others, only displaying if the clicker hasn't exceeded their viewing limit at Google that day. Therefore, they are unreliable for the professed reason of allowing editors to verify the sources. Skyerise (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mildly oppose - the links don't work for everyone, depending on country; and they make for long references in the article text (which can be bypassed by using {{sfn}}, but that's another topic). NB: this is a good question for a higher level of participation, the outcome of which is relevant enough for inclusion into a policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question Why are they ugly when all they do is turn the name of the book into a blue link if executed properly? How do they add to the length of the reference as seen by readers? How does a Google Books link make the article harder to edit? I simply do not understand that as I have edited hundreds of articles with Google Books links with no difficulties whatsoever. Specifically, which countries do not display Google Books links, and why? If Google Books links are so bad, why do so many Good articles and Featured articles include them? In conclusion, please link to any policy, guideline or respected essay which recommends against including Google Books links. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Relax! They are not ugly for the readers, but for the editors. Long strings of text. And when I follow a GB-link added in India, I usually come to a page which says that I can't access the book. And no, there is no policy on it; I meant that this issue might be incuded in some policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'll try to keep my argumentation brief and concise below:

1. Google Books links help a lot in verifying the material. If the material is not displayed at some regions, it's not a reason to remove the source, just as it's not a reason to remove a printed source if it's not available at your local library. In such cases, one can always ask for {{Request quotation}}
2. I don't quite understand how it would be better to force the reader to go through a separate Wikipedia ISBN search before being able to access the source
3. Both citation styles, {{sfn}} and <ref>, allow using Google Books links
4. There is no WP policy or guideline setting restrictions on using Google Books links. On the contrary, for using Google Books links, we have WP:BOOKLINKS. Moreover, we even have our very Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books
5. Google Books are largely used in Wikipedia, and this is the practice with many of the Featured articles and Good articles
6. In the {{sfn}} style, the links are added to the Sources -section and therefore they "aren't ugly" neither to readers nor editors; the link is just mentioned once. The same goes with <ref> where one can always name the refs in order to avoid excess repetition of the links.

Sincerely, I don't think one has to gain consensus for including Google Books links. As mentioned by Cullen³²⁸ above, that is a common practice across Wikipedia already. Therefore, one should more likely gain consensus not to do that. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The requirement for gaining consensus for any disputed change is clearly described both in the policy just linked as well as the essay on the bold, revert, discuss process. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument on Wikipedia, certainly not when it comes to gaining consensus. With respect to {{sfn}}, how do you intend to resolve the situation where there are multiple cites to the same reference using different pages? The deep Google Books link on the reference can only point to a single page. How is this helpful when the reader is following the link referring to a different page? Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:BRD is not a protection for editor's who jealously want to protect their own unique conception that is not supported by any existing policies. And adding a link to an accepted source is certainly not a "disputed change".

How to resolve the issue with different page numbers? Easily. Just including the peculiar page number to each references. For example, see Vietnamese folk religion#History. There we have an {{sfn}} reference which goes as follows: {{sfn| Roszko| 2012 | p = 28}}<nowiki>. This is taking one to the ''References'' section[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_folk_religion#cite_note-FOOTNOTERoszko201228-4], where the "short footnote" is displayed - the page number included. Finally, there is a neat and nice ''Sources'' section, where the full <nowiki>{{Citation}} details are published (author, title, year, url, accesdate, quote, isbn, ..., you name it). Hope this helps! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on BRD. Anyone editor at any time can ask for a review of whether or not there is consensus for something on the article talk page. A "disputed change" is any change that another editor disputes. Duh.

You seem to have missed my point on the Google URL in the {{cite}} or {{citation}} template. So, say you deep link to page 145 in the citation template. But another short footnote refers to page 185: you follow it and click the book link and instead you see page 145 displayed. My question is how do you intend to resolve this problem. Skyerise (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You can also link to the main entry of a publication; for example Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, Zen Classics: Formative Texts in the History of Zen Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support links to Google Books when appropriate to cite format and content. As a note, from Google Books you can follow links to many places that sell the book in question; it's not just for its own service. And while page viewing is regional, getting around that limit is trivial at best, and the opportunity to link to a specific page seems helpful IMHO. I don't see actual harm in allowing Google Books links. I often find it very helpful even if the page view is not available to me. Ogress _smash! 19:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I think it may be helpful to add a google books url, if the preview shows the relevant content. Linking to a specific page should be allowed. JimRenge (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.