Talk:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

earlier comments[edit]

Hello everyone, I too hope you are well

Forgive my being bold, but I have made a number of changes - 'well-known' is to my mind a matter of opinion. What happened to Conishead Priory after it ceased to be the Manjushri Institute in 1984 seems to me to be nothing to do with an article on the FPMT. I think a citation is needed for the data on the number of centers.

hope this makes sense, cheers Excellentone 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi everyone, hope you are well.

I have made 2 changes.

I took out the reference to Dorje Shugden. According to this FPMT website, Lama Yeshe was a Dorje Shugden practioner [1] -

"Kopan Monastery had been performing the Dorje Shugden practice from the beginning, as this was Lama Yeshe’s main protector"

Therefore the dispute was not about this practice. It has been discussed in length on the [New Kadampa Traditon] site and discussion page. I do not know enought about it to add an details to this site.

I also added a link about the Maitreya project, hope this doesn't break any rules.


Cheers

Patrick --Patrick K 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kopan Monastery used to perform the shugden practice, but not anymore. (Shugden has been known to be an "evil spirit." Don't practice it!) Prowikipedians (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again, I had another go at the statment around Manjushri Centre. I took this info from New Kadampa Tradition wiki page and discussion. I have tried to keep to the facts.

Are there any FPMT people on wikipedia? It would be interesting to have some more info about your organisation - as you can see on the NKT page, there is quite a lot of detail on the books and study programmes.

Cheers Patrick --Patrick K 08:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am a FPMT person, though I'm not a staff member. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed POV and unsourced controversy stuff[edit]

who added the long controversy section without giving even a source for it? So I removed it. FPMT is described in detail in Bluck's British Buddhism, David N. Kay's research and Cozort's short research article, see NKT article references. Regarding Shugden there was no notable controversy on it because both lamas accepted to stop that practice and it seems they had no problem of doing so. Or do you have any other source which saying the opposite? Regards kt66

removed that point completely. My arguments are: 1. no sources were given; 2. that FPMT lost one of their main centers to NKT is may not be a controversy from the site of the FPMT. If someone takes a thing away from me, without my agreement, such behaviour may be controversial from the site of the taker but what is there controversial from the site of the one who lost his belongings to such a "taker"? At the end they never mentioned this lost much in the public they rather "swallowed" it without bringing it to the public. However, if you have sources, we can add of course controversial points, but I have not seen one or a source for it until now and also the section offered no sources. That's why I removed that point completely. Regards, --Kt66 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
show me the citations please...(just to prevent faked material from being posted on Wikipedia..) Prowikipedians (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Citations needed" tag[edit]

So, do we have enough citations yet? Can we remove this tag? Dawud (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn..I'm not sure if we can remove the tag, but I think we have enough citations already, since most of the information comes from the FPMT offical website, Wisdom Archives, etc. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPMT -- Kopan Monastery & Center (and article?) links[edit]

It has been brought to my attention that, after visiting several FPMT center articles (such as Kopan Monastery), these articles need to be linked to (FPMT->center) and updated more often. Any ideas for improvement? Prowikipedians (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daja Wangchuk Meston[edit]

My original text describes him as an

"American Tibet activist and author of a memoir, Comes the Peace: My Journey to Forgiveness (Free Press, March 6, 2007). Meston grew up as a (white) boy monk at Kopan monastery--his mother having left him to become a Buddhist nun under Lama Yeshe--and describes his experience there as inhumane."

It seems that (user) Prowikipedians does not like the word "inhumane," and has made various edits--most recently, the deletion of the entire last sentence--to make the FPMT look better than it deserves. Meston's bad experiences at Kopan were not solely due to his being the only white boy, or his abandonment issues. He also reports being hungry, deprived of sleep, and unable to wash very often. Granted, the monastery was poor at the time (although presumably Lama Yeshe ate well and enjoyed his daily nap), but I think "inhumane" describes the situation quite well.

Just eliminating the whole sentence (as was done now) fails to give context to Meston's association with the FPMT. One might read it and easily conclude that he is just another supporter, rather than a victim.

I am not particularly "out to get" the FPMT, to which which I have some (positive) personal ties. By way of comparison, my entry for "Jan Willis" (immediately below) correctly reports her experiences as positive ones. Nor am I (as you can see) allergic to being edited. But to remove important, relevant, and accurate details for no good reason...well, that's just wrong. Dawud (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His experiences at Kopan may be "negative" as he was unable to wash very often. Kopan Monaestery has a shortage of water, as it has to soak up water underground. It is imperative to note that the shortage of water is not caused by "the lack of money." The word "inhumane" may not be able to describe the situation properly, since Buddhism, in general, values the non-suffering of all sentiment beings. Places like India and Nepal have water-shortages. The Western world cannot be compared to the Eastern world materialistically. This is just like trying to find a fast-food restaurant in Antarctica or the North Pole.
I am not "trying to make the FPMT better than it sounds." The FPMT works through donations, not entirely for the sake of profiting business.
The case (user) Dawud has mentioned may be true, but perhaps, it is an experience. FPMT cannot provide as comfortable beds like king-sized beds with soft pillows and all. That is an attachment, which has been taught by the Buddha himself 2,500 years ago, because this attachment leads to worldly, materialistic possessions, which creates problems such as "not being able to attain true happiness." Happiness comes internally, not externally. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could someone who is more proficient with images than I, put up some? I would like to see the FPMT's symbol (the mandala which is all over their website--I believe it is Guhyasamaja) as well as photos of Lamas Yeshe, Zopa, and/or Osel; Zina Rachevsky; early meditation courses with lots of hippies; Kopan monastery... that sort of thing. Dawud (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.47 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have the photos. It might take some time though. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Need more sources" tag[edit]

I took it off, given that most of the page seems to have sources, but somebody put it back up. Well--what more do you want? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.162.138 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It has enough sources, particularly from the original FPMT website provides PLENTY of information. Plus, I don't know what else to add here. I think some Wikipedians out here may seem to lack some understanding of the structure of FPMT. Spiritually powerful. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. 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:

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) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Neutrality; Self-promotion; Conflict of Interest: a Caution[edit]

Wikipedia says "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." This article appears to come within this category judging by the self-promotional nature of much of the content. See WP:SPA.

In addition, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, or organizations you wish to promote. Any such relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. The solution comes down to sourcing. If editors can first agree on which sources establish notability and what that notability is, then it shouldn't be hard to improve it.

When an article's editors are seen not to edit any other unconnected articles it is normally a sign that they have a CoI and SPA.

In brief, Wikipedia is not an advertising catalogue. Content is to be created by independent editors citing independent sources, not by the organization's own affiliates citing the subject's promotional literature. Sources must be external, independent, third-party, reliable, authentic and verifiable. See WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRV, and in particular, WP:SPIP.

Therefore, unless editors can agree to eliminate the lack of neutrality, bias, self-promotion and conflicts of interest that are self-evident in this article it runs the risk of wholesale deletion of all content that does not strictly meet WP criteria.

This is as advised by editor Ronz, who after perusal has recently inserted the CoI warning at the head of the article. MacPraughan (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the whole section on "Notable Followers" is completely un-sourced except for external links to apparently self-generated literature and therefore deserves to be deleted. If external, independent, third-party, reliable, authentic and verifiable sources can be cited to show that the listed people are FPMT followers they can be reinstated citing those sources. MacPraughan (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: the section on 'Publications' is completely unsourced and also contains four separate external links (forbidden in the text of an article). Furthermore these links are all links to FPMT-affiliate websites and are therefore considered as Spam and Advertising, see WP:SPAM and WP:ADS, Wikipedia:Spam#Affiliate_links, WP:ADMASK, WP:LINKSPAM and WP:SPAMMER and so forth. This section has therefore been deleted. If reliable, independent, third-party and verifiable sources can be identified to properly authenticate the deleted content it can be reinstated accordingly - citing the sources. Thank you. MacPraughan (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no reaction to this caution after one week by editors who have added material lifted from the subject's own website or otherwise completely uncited, I have added [citation needed] tags wherever independent, third party and verifiable sources are missing. The information I have tagged consists of promotional material which appears to have been posted by editors linked to the subject wishing to advertise available services or to provide background material that may be well-known to employees or members of the charity, but which is not verifiable in any third-party source listed. Please note that using the subject's own website as a source for information without citing independent external proof is contrary to WP policy. If acceptable citations are not provided within a reasonable time all material with [citation needed] tags is subject to deletion without further discussion. Thank you for your understanding. MacPraughan (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another 8 days have passed and I still see no reaction from any concerned editors. Is anyone concerned? The number of centres given in the lead section is not supported by any cited information in the body of the article which gives the same figures without any source at all. This is untenable and unsupported copy will need editing out unless concerned editors take responsibility to provide citations where required. See MOS:LEADCITE and MOS:INTRO for example and try to improve it. MacPraughan (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm just now seeing this after several years, so sorry for the delay. I re-added the "publications" section, on the grounds that this is actually an important FPMT activity. Wisdom Publications is one of two major English-language publishers of Tibetan Buddhist material, along with Shambhala (which absorbed Snow Lion awhile back).
I also restored most of tthe "notable followers" section, since these people are, well, notable. In order to avoid self-promotion and so forth, I propose to define "notable" to mean "having a Wikipedia article about them" (as all of these people do), and to keep the descriptions as short as possible, reserving the details for their own pages.
I am not inclined to spam anybody with FPMT links; however, the unfortunate fact is that the FPMT is the best source of information on things like, how many centers it has. While there have been several academic treatments of the FPMT (which the article cites), these tend to lag many years behind the present, and I have to imagine that most of them would be taking information like this from the FPMT as well.
If anyone is curious to know my own relationship with the material, I participated in FPMT activities many years ago, but ceased due to anger over the Maitreya Project (I am now broadly satisfied with its revised plans, which seem to avoid the aspects which made it controversial), and moved on to other affiliations. In my editing I have always tried to describe the FPMT's history and activities as clearly as possible, on a purely factual basis, and to call attention to as many academic or "outside" writings about it as I have been able to discover. Dawud (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dagri Rinpoche scandal[edit]

Yesterday, I added the following passage:

In 2019, a group of nuns called for an independent, third-party investigation into complaints of groping, sexual harassment, and sexual assault by Sera lama and FPMT teacher Dagri Rinpoche over a ten-year period. A petition to this effect attracted more than 4000 signatures.The FPMT International Office responded by suspending Dagri Rinpoche from its list of teachers, and commissioning FaithTrust Institute to conduct the requested investigation. Its 19 Sept. 2020 report found the allegations credible, and--since Dagri Rinpoche refused to be interviewed, but issued a written statement asking for forgiveness (he had since been accused of another groping incident, this time on an domestic Indian flight)[1]--concluded that a preponderance of the evidence confirmed "a pattern of abuse" by Dagri Rinpoche. The report also noted a pattern of "coercive or retaliatory behaviors" aimed at silencing complainants, and criticized the FPMT for its lack of any clear mechanism to handle such complaints (pp. 38-39). Five (out of eight) FPMT board members resigned amidst controversy over whether to release the report. A draft summary report was published, Dagri Rinpoche's suspension made permanent, and FPMT center leaders and registered teachers required to take a "Protection from Abuse" online training course. [2] [3] Commenting on the situation, Lama Zopa stated that in his view, "Dagri Rinpoche is a very positive, holy being—definitely not an ordinary person," and urged those who had received empowerments from him to practice guru devotion, seeing only his pure qualities. [4]

I had intended to double-check the chronology, and add the FPMT's written response, but Materialscientist reverted all of my edits for that day (not all of which were about Dagri). I re-reverted, but took the above paragraph out, thinking that Materialscientist probably did not mean to revert my unrelated edits.

Sooo... the Dagri Rinpoche scandal is clearly noteworthy. (It made Tricycle and the Indian newspapers.) Materialscientist, surely you cannot be proposing to ignore it altogether. Do you object to my presentation of it? Details, please. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.182.223 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: After two weeks with no discussion, I have re-added an edited version of the passage (now with FPMT objections to the report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.211.53 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Lobsang Wangyal, "Dagri Rinpoche speaks out, claims innocence," Tibet Sun (13 May 2019), https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2019/05/13/dagri-rinpoche-speaks-out-claims-innocence
  2. ^ "Update from FPMT Inc. (13 Nov. 2020), https://fpmt.org/fpmt-community-news/statement/nov-13-2020-update/
  3. ^ Tenpel (Tenzin Peljor, aka Michael Jäckel), "Fact-Finding Results in Response to Allegations of Sexual Misconduct by Dagri Rinpoche" (17 Nov. 2020), https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2020/11/17/fact-finding-results-in-response-to-multiple-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-by-dagri-rinpoche/
  4. ^ "Lama Zopa's Advice to Students of Dagri Rinpoche" (14 May 2019), https://fpmt.org/lama-zopa-rinpoche-news-and-advice/advice-from-lama-zopa-rinpoche/lama-zopa-rinpoches-advice-to-students-of-dagri-rinpoche/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foundation_for_the_Preservation_of_the_Mahayana_Tradition&oldid=1214849546"