Mi pham rgya mtsho: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:56, 12 March 2018

PersonType	Category:Author
MainNamePhon	Mipham Gyamtso
MainNameTib	མི་ཕམ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་
MainNameWylie	mi pham rgya mtsho
AltNamesTib	མི་ཕམ་འཇམ་དབྱངས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་ · འཇམ་དཔལ་དགྱེས་པའི་རྡོ་རྗེ་ · འཇུ་མི་ཕམ་
AltNamesWylie	mi pham 'jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho · 'jam dpal dgyes pa'i rdo rje · 'ju mi pham
YearBirth	1846
YearDeath	1912
BornIn	sde dge
TibDateGender	Male
TibDateElement	Fire
TibDateAnimal	Horse
TibDateRabjung	14
ReligiousAffiliation	Nyingma
StudentOf	Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo · Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Taye · Dpal sprul 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po · Nyoshul Lungtok Tenpai Nyima · Rdzogs chen bzhi pa mi 'gyur nam mkha'i rdo rje
TeacherOf	Lerab Lingpa · 'jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma · 'gyur med pad+ma rnam rgyal · Adzom Drukpa Drodul Pawo Dorje · Nyoshul Lungtok Tenpai Nyima · Dil mgo mkhyen brtse bkra shis dpal 'byor · Pad+ma dbang mchog rgyal po
BDRC	https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P252
Treasury of Lives	http://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Mipam-Gyatso/4228
IsInGyatsa	No
PosBuNayDefProv	Definitive
PosBuNayDefProvNotes	"Mipam explains that the last wheel’s status as the definitive meaning does not refer to everything taught in the last wheel, but specifically concerns the teaching of Buddha-nature: ...'Although the meaning of the last wheel is praised in the sūtras and commentaries, [this does] not [refer to] everything in the last wheel, but is spoken in this way concerning the definitive meaning position of demonstrating the [Buddha-]nature.' Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, pp. 4-5.
PosWheelTurn	Third Turning
PosWheelTurnNotes	Buddha-nature is a third wheel teaching, but he holds both third and second to be of definitive meaning and integrates the two as noncontradictory in his presentation of buddha-nature as the unity of emptiness and appearance. Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, pp. 4-5.
PosZhenRangNotes	He aligns his view with Nagarjuna, but seems to assert rangtong in terms of the relative and zhentong in terms of the ultimate, as Duckworth quotes Mipam's Lion's Roar: "First it is necessary to ascertain the lack of intrinsic nature of all phenomena in accordance with the scriptures of the protector Nāgārjuna; because if this is not known, one will not be able to ascertain the manner that relative [phenomena] are empty from their own side and the manner that the ultimate is empty of what is other. Therefore, one should first ascertain the freedom from constructs which is what is known reflexively." Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, p. 71. However, Mipam is also quoted as stating: "In the tradition of self-emptiness, since there is only the ultimately nonexistent, an ultimately existing phenomenon is impossible. In the tradition of other-emptiness, what is ultimately nonexistent is the relative, and what is ultimately existent is the ultimate itself. My tradition is clear in the Rapsel Rejoinder, the tradition propounding self-emptiness." Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, p. 74. Mipam's position depends on the definitions use for these terms, as Duckworth points out: "When we consider Mipam’s depiction of emptiness in light of the categories of “self-emptiness” and “other-emptiness,” we can see that according to Khenpo Lodrö Drakpa’s definitions of a proponent of self-emptiness (claiming a non-implicative negation as the consummate ultimate) and other-emptiness (claiming wisdom as not empty of its own essence), Mipam is a proponent of neither self-emptiness nor other-emptiness. However, according to Lochen’s definitions of self-emptiness and otheremptiness, we see how Mipam can be said to be a proponent of both self-emptiness and other-emptiness!" Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, p. 74.
PosEmptyLuminNotes	"Mipam states that the basic element (Buddha-nature) is empty of adventitious defilements, yet not empty of consummate qualities. These consummate qualities are inseparable from the suchness of phenomena that is luminous clarity and self-existing wisdom." Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, p. 18. "Mipam’s two models of two truths support his interpretation of the compatibility of emptiness and Buddha-nature. The indivisibility of the two truths, empty appearance, is Buddha-nature; and the unity of appearance and emptiness is what is known in authentic experience." Douglas Duckworth, Mipam on Buddha-Nature, p. 26.
Other wikis	drl:Mi pham rgya mtsho buddhanature:Mi pham rgya mtsho bca:Mi pham rgya mtsho rtz:Mi pham rgya mtsho dnz:Mi pham rgya mtsho dudjom:Mi pham rgya mtsho khyentselineage:Mi pham rgya mtsho lcp:Mi pham rgya mtsho

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 |PosZhenRangNotes=He aligns his view with Nagarjuna, but seems to assert rangtong in terms of the relative and zhentong in terms of the ultimate, as Duckworth quotes Mipam's Lion's Roar:
 "First it is necessary to ascertain the lack of intrinsic nature of all phenomena in accordance with the scriptures of the protector Nāgārjuna; because if this is not known, one will not be able to ascertain the manner that relative [phenomena] are empty from their own side and the manner that the ultimate is empty of what is other. Therefore, one should first ascertain the freedom from constructs which is what is known reflexively." [[Duckworth, D.]], [[Mipam on Buddha-Nature]], p. 71.
+*However, Mipam is also quoted as stating:
+"In the tradition of self-emptiness, since there is only the ultimately nonexistent, an ultimately existing phenomenon is impossible. In the tradition of other-emptiness, what is ultimately nonexistent is the relative, and what is ultimately existent is the ultimate itself. My tradition is clear in the Rapsel Rejoinder, the tradition propounding
+self-emptiness." [[Duckworth, D.]], [[Mipam on Buddha-Nature]], p. 74.
+*Mipam's position depends on the definitions use for these terms, as Duckworth points out:
+"When we consider Mipam’s depiction of emptiness in light of the categories of “self-emptiness” and “other-emptiness,” we can see that according to Khenpo Lodrö Drakpa’s definitions of a proponent of self-emptiness
+(claiming a non-implicative negation as the consummate ultimate) and other-emptiness (claiming wisdom as not empty of its own essence), Mipam is a proponent of neither self-emptiness nor other-emptiness. However, according to Lochen’s definitions of self-emptiness and otheremptiness, we see how Mipam can be said to be a proponent of both self-emptiness and other-emptiness!" [[Duckworth, D.]], [[Mipam on Buddha-Nature]], p. 74.
 |PosEmptyLuminNotes=* "Mipam states that the basic element (Buddha-nature) is empty of adventitious defilements, yet not empty of consummate qualities. These consummate qualities are inseparable from the suchness of phenomena that is luminous clarity and self-existing wisdom." [[Duckworth, D.]], [[Mipam on Buddha-Nature]], p. 18.