Friday, September 03, 2010

Chokgyur Lingpa

Click on image to see large
For more on this image go here
(h/t to anon-linker)


Rigdsin Palden Dorje said...

Who are the Lamas Above and below? I believe teh one down on the right of Chogyur Lingpa is Kyentse Wangpo and the Lama above to be Jamgön Kongtrül. The other two look like Karmapas. The fifteenth?
Thank you for sharing!

anon-linker said...

Another good site,, is the largest collection of online biographies of Tibetan masters. This new venture is funded by the famous Rubin Foundation which has the fabulous museum of Tibetan/Indian thankgas in Manhattan. The site database has been growing since last year as far as I remember every month with new bios. Here is the Chogyur Lingpa bio there:

They link to another thangka of the terton painted while he was alive also from the previous site, showing him even more realistic and with his hand and foot prints:

pensum said...

thanks for your query RPD, of course the two figures with black hats would be Karmapas, if no one clarifies who the other figures are first i will ask someone who should be able to supply the identities.

and thanks too to the infamous anon-linker for more wonderful links, which i'm sure he's noticed i have incorporated into the latest post.

anon-linker said...

Why infamous?

pensum said...

sorry anon, i was just joking (it's not an uncommon term of endearment where i'm from). your input here is a great pleasure and of benefit to us all, and we are all very grateful for your presence and sharing.

anon-linker said...

Hi pensum, I was only pulling your leg too as an excuse to ask watch your mind as to the nature of the the real one who is blogging :D since I re-read this pith instruction passage last night:

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's "Rainbow Painting", pp. 118:

`Being able to notice its thought-occurrence and stillness doesn’t mean
one knows the real nature of this mind. It is simply the ability to detect
when there are thoughts and when there is not the presence and absence of
thought. This is called ‘knowing the character of the mind’. It is not
knowing buddha nature. Sometimes your attention keeps still and sometimes
it moves around. As long as you merely keep an eye on whether
there is thinking or stillness and never go beyond this exercise, you will
not reach enlightenment.

The teacher will then give the next instruction, saying, “Now, don’t
just notice whether there is stillness or thought occurrence. When there is
thinking, look into the thinker. When there is stillness, look into what feels
the stillness.”

The disciple will return entirely bewildered and say, “When I look into
what feels the stillness, I don’t find anything whatsoever. When the
thinking occurs and I look into what thinks, I don’t find any ‘thing’ either.
Not only that, but both the thinking and the feeling of stillness disappear.
Now what am I supposed to do? Before, I could take charge of something.
I could identify the thinking and the stillness. But it’s not like that
anymore. When I look into what thinks, the thinker vanishes. When I look
into what is still, that’s also gone. I’m at a complete loss. I have lost both
the thinker and that which feels still.”

The teacher will reply, “No, you are not at all at a complete loss. Now
you have arrived at Mahamudra, at the nature of mind. You need to train
in this for months and years. Before, you were only concerned with the
manifestation, not with the nature. Now the manifestation has vanished.
What is left is the nature itself.” That is the traditional way of pointing out

Training in this fashion, there is no difference whatsoever between
Mahamudra and Dzogchen practice. That is why so many great masters of
the past have praised the Mahamudra system so highly. It is perfect for
both a beginner of little capacity and for a person of great capacity. In
Mahamudra there are no errors or sidetracks whatsoever.

What we should really look into from now on is that which thinks
when we think and that which feels still when we are quiet. All practices
prior to this point are externalized, in that one watches what occurs as an
object of the attention, “Now I’m thinking. Now I’m feeling still.” In both
these cases, the object of attention is externalized from oneself, from the
one who watches. So, from this point on we internalize the practice by
recognizing that which thinks or that which feels still, rather than
observing the feeling of it."