Talk:Yidam

Section '1 Yidams with accoutrements and attributes'

Hi Hummingbird, what is the intention of the "1 Yidams with accoutrements and attributes" section; it does not make any sense at all to me?rudy 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Accoutrements and attributes are standard terms employed in iconography.

Blessings

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Very little of this user's edits to this (and many, many other) articles make any sense, and seem to me to be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.103.210 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ur unsigned imputation of "seem" is unseemly!

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is factual... however it would be more appropriate under Five Dhyani Buddhas (as those are the particular yidam in question) since this page is an overview of what a yidam is - not of each yidam's iconography. Any objection to me moving it to said page? Dakinijones (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful here, DJ - there is a very large difference between the scope and function of the Dhyani Buddhas in General Mahayana, and the scope and function of the Dhyani Buddhas as Yidams, or Ishtadevatas as found in Vajrayana Mahayana. Although they appear to be the same, the relationship, manner of meditation, focus, appearances, basic entities, and interpretations are distinct. For instance, there are many traditions that recognise Vairocana, but not all of them relate to Vairocana as is described in the completion stage commentaries, or for that matter, in the generation stage commentaries of HYT. (20040302 (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

OTOH, I have just looked at the article itself, this section has very little to do with Ishta-devata in general, and is particularly reductive in it's approach to the use and meaning of the Dhyani Buddhas in Vajrayana, outside of it's specific ontext. I would be quite happy to see the section go, or better, be placed into a correct article. It looks like it maybe something from the Vairocana tantra cycle -maybe taken from the Vairocanaabhisambodhitantra at first glance. (20040302 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

OK. Well unless there's any objections, I'm going to remove it then. I checked the 5 Dhyani Buddhas and they already have this material on attributes covered there, so it'll just be a straight deletion. Dakinijones (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose name change

Using a sanskrit name when a perfectly good English phrase exists and is in fairly common use seems to go against WP:Name convention. I really doubt anyone searches under Ishta Deva (Buddhism)... and if they don't add Buddhism they end up on the Hindu page. I'm proposing this page is moved to Meditational deity. Does anyone object? Oh... and any support would also be welcome! Dakinijones (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully support that idea!rudy (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. There is a disambiguous note at the top of the Hindu page. WP:Name doesn't really establish a convention on this one way or another. If we moved the Buddhism one we would have to move the Hinduism one too, and then we would need to either combine them or have a "Meditation deity (Buddhism)" and a "Meditation deity (Hinduism)". Then we would also have to move all sorts of other articles, including "dakini" to "sky-goer" and "annuttara yoga tantra" to "highest union continuity" and so forth. For that matter, "Buddha" would have to be moved to "Awakened One." Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite the point in this case, I am not against some Sanskrit terms. But in Buddhism, it seems that simply nobody uses this term, so it would make more sense to come via a redirect page to a name that is used commonly. The title of a page determines whether a subject is findable for a reader, and "Ishta-deva" is not used by any Buddhist as far as I know.rudy (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the term found in the Buddhist tantras, and it does get used. It may be less familiar than yidam, but I think in the interest of both consistency and primacy we should stick with the Sanskrit as normative for mahayana and vajrayana Indian Buddhist terms. The page is very findable for readers with both a redirect and a disambiguation note. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is the page naming convention per WP:Name is based primarily on reader usuage and not on imposing pre-conceived normative standards. It makes reading the page (all of it, not just the title) highly confusing for anyone - ie, as you identify, the majority - who came for information about yidams. If for some reason yidam is unacceptible then meditational deity will do Dakinijones (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• BTW I've been wanting to ask you Sylvain1972, when you originally moved the page from Yidam to Ishta Deva you wrote that all the other "roots" are in Sanskrit. Which roots did you mean? Dakinijones (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean the three roots: "guru", and both "dharmapala" and "dakini." I don't agree that the Tibetan is significantly more prevalent than the Sanskrit. We must remember that we are talking about a phenomenon in both Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. I also don't think people will find it "highly confusing" given that yidam redirects here, the Tibetan "yidam" is given in the first sentence and then discussed in the first following paragraph.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you mention one qualified contemporary tantric buddhist teacher of Indian origin? I can't. 900 years ago I would have agreed with you, since then, Buddhism all but disappeared in India proper. rudy (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudyh, the fact that you don't know of any doesn't mean that there aren't any. Go to West Bengal, if you want to find initiators into the 8 Taras. Of course, you know that Ladakh is filled to the brim with contemporary tantric buddhist teachers - take the current Jangtse Chöje for a start. Or Bakula Rinpoche.... Say what you mean :D (20040302 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

There was a 700-year history of Vajrayana in India. Whether or not their are Indian vajrayana masters now is not particularly relevant. The article about the Buddha is not listed under "Sangye" because there are more Tibetans than Indians these days.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, why are these West Bengals not mentioned under Vajrayana or any source that I can find? References please... Ladakhi are very much into Tibetan Buddhism, they use the Tibetan Buddhist canon, and I doubt if many of them even read Sanskrit - been there, seen it, just like in Sikkhim of course. Also, the 700-year history you mean ended just about 700 year ago in India?rudy (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in English-language Tibetan Buddhist texts, the Buddha is called the Buddha - not Sangye. An English-reading Tibetan Buddhist will be looking for Buddha. The point is not whether a term came originally from Sanskrit, Tibetan or Anglo-Saxon. The point of an English encyclopedia is to offer the term the English reader is most likely to look under. At least according to WP:Name Dakinijones (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just so don't have any opinion on this. Most current translations do not use either Ishta-deva OR yidam - they commonly use the term 'deity' - which doesn't really work for us here, because it's being used as a technical term, rather than within it's everyday meaning. Regardless of whether or not the article ends up being Ishta-deva or yidam - or something else, any other relevant link will be redirected to the same article. Why fuss? (20040302 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Well I'm fussing for several reasons. What's on the page at the moment is a mess. The term appears variously as 'Ishta-deva', 'Isha-deva' (I have no idea why) and 'yidam'. Wiki calls it 'Ishta-deva (or variations thereof) whilst our cited reliable sources actually all call it 'yidam' (Although in some contexts it is called 'deity' - actually mostly 'meditational deity'[which could - and should- redirect here] - whenever someone is writing about its technical uses they do mostly call it 'yidam'). Since Wiki calls it something different from the reliable sources it makes Wiki look like we either have no idea what we're talking about or we have some kind of axe to grind and are trying to proove a point. In either case, a reader looking for an encyclopedic resource as a result of coming across the term in academic or Tibetan Buddhist practice texts in English is going to take one look at the title and move along to something else that will better meet their needs for reliable, unbiased information. Dakinijones (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that no reliable sources use ishta-deva. Pick up Elizabeth English's book on Vajrayogini, or David Gray's books on Chakrasamvara, or any of the Columbia series on tantras, and you'll find it. An instance of a spelling error does not a mess make. In any case, I'm correcting it right now. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some editing, the page certainly looks better with consistent spelling - it'd be good if we could work on activiely improving this page at the same time as discussing the naming problem. Thanks for offering some reliable sources that use Ishta-deva. I'll need to see if I can check them out as none of them are texts I have at home. Why is it that all the sources refererred to on our page only talk about yidams? That is one of the reasons I called the page a mess. Perhaps you'd like to add suitable quotes from the sources you mentioned? Dakinijones (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the Elizabeth English on google books. Elizabeth English book She has neither Ishta-deva nor Yidam in the index. However the words 'yidam' and 'meditational deity' do both appear (as quotations) on p xxv. Google revealed no use of Ishta-deva (although it might appear on pages not publicly available). Clearly, from the index, although she may mention the term in passing she does not address it. If I track down the David Gray and Columbia works am I going to find the same thing? If so, clearly these do not constitute reliable sources in this context. According to WP:Name we should name as reliable sources name... ie those people who actually write about the subject of our page in English Dakinijones (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

English does have ishtadevata - I don't know why it doesn't come up in the source but I'll find it in the book and add it. I've added a lot of other reliable sources, print and online, in the meanwhile.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that the Sanskrit version of this term is Ishta-deva. What is in doubt is that writers in English ever use the term. They may refer to it (generally in brackets) but in the main body of the text, reliable sources all appear to use the term 'Yidam' or 'Meditational Deity'. WP:Name says we follow their usuage. The sources you have added are only reliable for the Sanskrit being cognate with Yidam - they are not reliable sources for how the term is used in the English language Dakinijones (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Name does not list that as the only consideration. And the problem with that is that the most popular usuage by far in English is simply "deity," not "meditational deity," which is rarely used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for explanation of why this is a problem. The difference in usage between yidam and devata or ishtadeva is marginal, and futhermore yidam is only used in Tibetan sources, whereas ishtadevata is not, which makes it less of a biased term. It makes more sense to go with the Sanskrit original. Not only does this provide consistency with the other three jewels and three roots, but it also has the advantage of not perpetuating the false conception that we are talking about a strictly Tibetan phenomena. The term ishtadevata has an equivalent (and was the basis of terms) in China, Korea, Japan and all East Asian countries with Vajrayana traditions. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "The Ishta-deva appears as one of the Three Roots in the Vajrayana Buddhist 'Inner' refuge formulation." Do you have a source for that? rudy (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudy, I added three citations to the page. Are you disputing that Ishtadeva is the Sanskrit original term for yidam? Or are you disputing that Ishtadeva/Yidam is one of the three roots?Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ishta-deva never appears as one of the Three Roots. Try googling it ;-) Regarding precision - it says "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase.". The more popular phrase is - by far - either Yidam or Meditation Deity. No-one uses the Sanskrit... they simply note the term in passing. WP:Name says clearly that we go with common usuage. Dakinijones (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that it isn't? We have already established that it is, and you haven't addressed my point about keeping the article inclusive to non-Tibetan traditions. Are you contending that Ishadeva is not the proper Sanskrit for Yidam, that Yidam is not one of the three roots, or that the three roots are exclusively Tibetan? Tell me which point you are making and I will give you a source to refute it. You did not address my earlier point in response at all, so I will repeat it: WP:Name does not list that as the only consideration. And the problem with that is that the most popular usuage by far in English is simply "deity," not "meditational deity," which is rarely used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for explanation of why this is a problem. The difference in usage between yidam and devata or ishtadeva is marginal, and futhermore yidam is only used in Tibetan sources, whereas ishtadevata is not, which makes it less of a biased term. It makes more sense to go with the Sanskrit original. Not only does this provide consistency with the other three jewels and three roots, but it also has the advantage of not perpetuating the false conception that we are talking about a strictly Tibetan phenomena. The term ishtadevata has an equivalent (and was the basis of terms) in China, Korea, Japan and all East Asian countries with Vajrayana traditions. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to keep this page inclusive. That's why I suggested "meditation deity" which is inclusive for all traditions since it's the English language term. We need a page that is accessible to readers and to all traditions. Ishta-deva doesn't work for that - which is why English language writers talk about the term as either meditation deity or yidam. Most of the sources you've quoted - including ones like the English and Patrul Rinpoche that you've cited as supposedly supporting your POV actually are proof that the term used is most certainly not the Sanskrit. All the quotes on our page support the fact the the Sanskrit is not used. You've yet to provide one quote of a writer in English using the Sanskrit - and I'm not going to check each of the sources you've cited because on the several occasions I have checked your sources they prooved the opposite of what you said they would. You'll need to quote the text here for me to believe it because past experience is making me wary of wasting my time. Dakinijones (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. My sources have consistently backed up what I've said, as do the ones below. "meditation deity" or "meditational deity" is not the English language term--it seems to be rarely used. You haven't given much evidence for it's usage, for that matter. The English term that is most often used is simply "deity," which would satisfy WP:Name except that it fails Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). That is why Ishta-deva is preferable.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, I immediately found a site that does use the Sansrkit in the three roots formulation without mentioning yidam at all: [1]. Here is another one that contradictions what you assert, found right away: [2]. Look at the RangjungYesheWiki, which I did not edit, which gives the Sanskrit with the Tibetan only in parens[3]. Here is an instance from Dzongsar Khysentse Rinpoche's website where he gives the Sanskrit without the Tibetan at all, [4]. There are many many sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Name convention

I thought it might help discussion if I posted here from WP:Name the general guideline for naming convention:Dakinijones (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

from the page

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Naming Convention

So in general - it says above from WP:Name - we optomise for readers over editors and for usuage in reliable sources in English. Nowhere does it mention going for consistency.

Nobody seems to be arguing with the fact that most users will be searching for yidam.

I'd like to see some evidence that reliable sources use the term with any frequency. The vast majority of English writing is from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and as far as I'm aware they say yidam or - more rarely - meditational deity. Academics writing about the tradition also use yidam in preference to Ishta-deva as far as I'm aware.

So the question is: which reliable sources - if any - use the term Ishta-Deva in preference to yidam? Dakinijones (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) BTW... I just checked and (with the obvious exception of the Sanskrit Dictionary) every single one of our sources/references uses the term Yidam. Dakinijones (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Roots

Sylvain1972, please quote your source for 3 Roots as used in Vajrayana Buddhism. I have a reliable source saying there's evidence it's a Tibetan Buddhist formulation. Of course that source may be incorrect. But we need to see your reliably sourced evidence before we say different. I've corrected your edit back to what we have reliably sourced evidence for - please don't alter it again without citing your evidence.... preferably with a quote so we can all see the evidence for what it is. Dakinijones (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The source you listed appears to state not that the roots themselves are a Tibetan formulation, but rather that the idea that the roots supercede the three jewels is a Tibetan formulation. But in any case, the way it is listed now does not make sense because Tibetans do not refer to guru, yidam and dakini, they refer to lama, yidam and khandro. The sensible thing to me seems to be to give both of everything, with either the Tibetan or Sanskrit in parens.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to read texts with totally different eyes. What you see as prooving one thing, I'm seeing as prooving another. That could make for some very productive work - for example, if you could find a good quote re use of the 3 Roots outside Tibetan Buddhism I would be delighted. We'd all know a bit more and WP would be a better resource. But currently we're mostly just arguing our different views here and not much growth is happening on the page. We don't seem to be finding ways to turn our different perspectives to our advantage in terms of producing a good page. We don't seem to be able to establish shared points of reference to work from. Since we so often seem to be talking at cross-purposes I think we may need to bring in a mediator if we're going to make progress with this page. Would a mediator be acceptible to you? Dakinijones (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we ask a few regular editors of articles about Vajrayana Buddhism to weigh in.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudy and myself have yet to find a way of agreeing an approach to terminology in this article with you, so I'm thinking that some specific help may be needed here. But if you think inviting other opinions may be of help then I'm happy to try that first, preferably with the understanding that we'll go to mediation if progress isn't made. Dakinijones (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 3 roots. The general formulation is guru, yidam, protector Lama, yidam, khandro is a specifically Nyingma formulation - googling, it appears less than 300 times, guru, yidam, protector over 800 times. I'm happy for it to appear as guru, yidam, protector Dakinijones (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The khandroma part is specifically Nyingma, but lama is standard. The Sarma formulation is lama, yidam and chokyong. I would suggest an asterisks explaining the alternate forumlation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well no, the lama part isn't standard... as shown by the googling of guru, yidam, protector I linked above and which you seem to have ignored. (Of course there are plenty of reliable sources too). The English language formulation of the 3 Roots is most frequently guru, yidam, protector.

I googled "lama yidam chokyong" and the formulation appeared in that form only once in the English language (and that on a CZ web site). And in fact the 3 words appeared in the same sentence together less than 60 times. It appears that you may be misled by the fact that the originals are in Tibetan. We are talking about the English language formulation of the 3 Roots. If we presented "lama yidam chokyong" as a formulation we would be risking WP:OR, since it is a formulation not used by reliable sources... or any other sources for that matter.

If you wish to reference, in the 3 Roots section, the Tibetan language phrasing of the 3 Roots I have no objection at all - in fact I think that would make an excellent addition... although of course it will need to be the Wylie and not the Anglicised Tibetan you've given here, since that would only serve to confuse the reader. Dakinijones (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Google searches are indicative of much in this case. I used your same technique, substituting "lama" for guru, and got practically the same number of hits.[5]. But with numbers that low (less than a thousand) it doesn't tell us anything definitive about what is normative in English. "Guru" "deity" and "protector" gets more than "guru" "yidam" and "protector".[6]. You are misapplying WP:Name by using statistically insignificant findings and acting as though they preclude all other considerations. There is definitely no consensus at this point as to what terms are translated into English, what terms are left in Sanskrit and what are left in Tibetan. It is the duty of the Encyclopedia to present the options clearly, and consistency is helpful in that regard. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sylvain, but this sounds a bit hard-headed. In Tibetan Buddhism, which is by far the most important Vajrayana tradition, nearly everybody uses yidam; you are really trying to prove the opposite of what you are doing. I'm involved in vajrayana for over 20 years, and I'm not sure if I ever came across the term Ishta deva before I saw this article, I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty sure my experience is valid for the vast majority of people involved in vajrayana. Please face the facts, language is not and will never be totally consistent, as it is made by normal humans, not by scholars who discuss over the theoretical correctness or consistency of words. rudy (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism may be the biggest Vajrayana tradition at the present time, but whether or not it is the most important is entirely subjective (and I would be inclined to disagree). It is certainly not the only one under discussion, or the only one worthy of the attention of the article. What is needed here is a term that applicable to the full range of discussion, and yidam is not it for the reasons I've already outlined many times.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to support Rudy's request for participation on the Project page, admittedly indebted to Rudy for his participation when I've made similar pleas in the past, I'd like to toss in my meager thoughts, if I may, in a hopefully equanimous manner:

1. General audience: Referring to the aforementioned WP naming rules, as a "general audience" member of Vajrayana, I'd say I've often heard the term "yidam" but never (maybe once, maybe?) "ishta-deva" (though, if I did, I vaguely recall it was a Hindu context).
2. Google: In the past when we've had these types of discussions (e.g., on the issue of what to do with the Buddha page), we've found it meaningful to look at two criteria. The first was google hits (as I think was mentioned above). Thus for instance, a google of "ishta-deva" +buddhism -wiki results in 1,780 hits (some of which are clearly Hindu in focus) while yidam +Buddhism -wiki results in "about 12,000" hits.
3. WP links: A secondary criteria we've used in the past is what do WP editors who link to this page expect the name to be. Checking out the "Pages that link to" page it appears that over 50 pages link here via a variant on "yidam" while about three (?) link here based on "ishta-deva."

At least on these criteria – though I'm not arguing that they're sufficient – it appears the support is for the name of "yidam." I hope this helps in resolving instead of fueling this debate. Might it be time for a vote? With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I just recalled a third (actually the first in our prior discussions) criteria we used was what other well-regarded reference publications used. For simplicity, we used information available at http://www.britannica.com/ and http://www.encyclopedia.com/. In regards to the current matter, I can't find (and maybe I'm doing something wrong?) in these resources anything pertinent to the current discussion (with the possible exception being a reference at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438026/Padmasambhava to "yidam"?). Just FWIW. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Larry, the problem with that is, while yidam may generate more hits than ishta-deva, this article is also about Vajrayana in India, China, Korea and Japan, and to use the Tibetan word "yidam" in those contexts makes no sense.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sylvain, without hearing from the other specialists here, it sounds to me like you raise a very interesting point. How to address such depth of understanding is obviously beyond my knowledge. If I may share some immediate ideas that might be (though probably not) worth considering, I'm wondering:

1. Might it be worthwhile creating two different articles that are interrelated in either a superordinate-subordinate or peer-to-peer fashion:

• Yidam - dealing with the Tibetan manifestations
• Ishta-deva (Buddhism) - dealing with the Indian and related manifestations

(It's not immediately clear to me which term would be more pertinent – historically? currently? – for East Asian cultures, especially for those in the Tibetan sphere of influence.)

2. Might it be worth while making these two "main" articles off a superordinate one, perhaps Meditational deity, as Dakini has repeatedly expressed above? (This latter approach of course can be seen in various articles, such as Dhyana, etc.)

If this is to remain a single article, then my understanding of WP is that then the most frequently used term should be used for the title, in this case yidam. I'm thinking for instance, off the cuff of my head (is that the expression?), of the Skandha article. Skandha is the Sanskrit terma and khandha is the Pali term. Having a Theravadin practice, I'm used to khandha. But, when I rewrote that article, I recognized that this term has pan-Buddhist currency (e.g., unlike dhamma vicaya) and is frequently referenced in Western literature by its Sanskrit term thus it's entitled Skandha. The same for Pratītyasamutpāda (not that I've edited this article, though I've linked to it multiple times) — a Sanskrit term that I'm constantly looking up, while the Pali term, paticca-samuppada, rolls off the finger tips.

I guess part of what I think I'm hearing might be fear of or resentment towards cultural hegemony — as if the Indian/East Asian manifestations of ishta-deva are being obliterated by yidam. (As a Theravadin, I used to feel that a lot on WP.) If this is the case and if it hasn't been voiced, then I ask (hope?) that it be voiced, respected and addressed sensitively — all within the confines of WP's pragmatic but necessarily imperfect policy, which for me at least requires at times utter deference to the overwhelmingly well-intended and fair general consensus.

I fear I'm a Johnny-come-lately (when requested?) so I don't want you to feel compelled to rehash existing arguments for me. I hope my thoughts have done more than take up your time and WP bytes. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The most common usage in English is simply "deity." This would be the obvious choice under WP:Name, but for obvious reasons it fails Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The next most commonly used English term by far, as Google bears out, is Tutelary deity, which is an already existing article which makes passing reference to yidam and ishta-deva but covers a lot of other ground. I suppose we could subsume everything under a new article Tutelary diety (Buddhism), as was suggested. This would not be my preference, but if we can have a few editors familiar with Vajrayana topics weigh in and this option generates a degree of consensus, it is the solution I would be most amenable to.

As the Sanskrit original, Ishta-deva has "pan-Buddhist currency," as you mentioned, in a way that yidam doesn't. East Asian vajrayana does not derive from Tibet, it derives from India, or India-via-China. Not to mention, using yidam to talk about varjayana in India is misleading. I don't think breaking off Yidam as an article makes sense, because we are talking about the same fundamental phenomena (with variations) - it would be like having a separate article called "dgra bcom pa" to talk about arhat in a Tibetan context.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sylvain -

Just to check in on the Google counts, based on the below-identified strings, here's what I see:

proposed title	Google search string	Google-reported hits
ishta-deva	"ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki[7]	"about 1,710"
	"ishta devata" -"ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki[8]	"about 2,130"
	"istadevata" -"ishta-deva" -"ishta devata" +Buddhism -wiki[9]	"about 2,150"
tutelary deity	"tutelary deity" +Buddhism -wiki[10]	"about 6,350"
yidam	yidam +Buddhism -wiki[11]	"about 12,000"

Perhaps we're using different criteria for our searches. Would you recommend different strings than those above and would such yield significantly different results?

Thanks for your continued thoughtful and kind engagement.

Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't include "yidam" because it is not an English term, and for all of the other reasons I mentioned above it does not adequately describe the full subject matter of the article but rather distorts it. My point was, after "deity", "tutelary deity" gets far more than "meditation deity"[12] (687) or "meditational deity" [13] (1,950). Also, the minor variations "ishta devata" +Buddhism -wiki (2,550) [14] and "istadevata" +Buddhism -wiki (2,160) [15]generate additional hits which should be factored in. It is essentially the same word with discrepancy in how it is phoneticized and whether the suffix "ta" is included. All told you have 6,400, which is very comparable given the low numbers we are talking about.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the table to include the variants you mentioned. (There's a possible tangent to follow sometime that the "ishta*" hits are more likely to include Hindu core material as opposed to "yidam," but we can cross that bridge if this issue becomes a close call.)

You've piqued my interest in this topic. So, later tonight or tomorrow I'll go through a few typical introductory Buddhism texts that many WP Buddhism editors have previously agreed meet the letter and/or spirit of WP:RS (e.g., Gombrich, Harvey, Robinson & Johnson) to see if they express a choice or preference on "ishta*" or "yidam," and I'll add those findings to the table above.

Regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just realized needed to subtract previously searched for "ishta*" strings to prevent double counting of some pages ;-) Updated resultant strings & numbers. Cheers, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have neglected to point out that ishta deva (or its variants) is also the normative term in the Newar tradition of Vajranaya Buddhism. That is what books on the subject in English often use along with the English--you will rarely or never see yidam because it makes no sense in that context. There are not that many examples of books discussing the matter from a pan-national perspective, but in one example that comes to mind, The Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art, by John C. Huntington, he uses "ishta devata" numerous times as the normative word in discussing both Tibetan and Newar deities (this is searchable through google books).Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sylvain -

Turns out a quick glance at the TOCs and indices of the typical Buddhism 101 textbooks that I have yielded very, very little, so I won't bother updating the table above with it. I'll just plop my scant findings here:

• Harvey, Peter (1990; 15^th printing 2007). An Introduction to Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31333-3.
  Given that this is a university-press publication of a world-famous scholar, I suspect that this is the only actual WP-defined reliable source we've thusfar cited. (According to the Amazon.com[16] "Editorial Reviews" section, the Times Literary Supplement wrote of this book: "... in its breadth and scope it is without serious rival as an introductory volume..."; thus, I'm thinking, fairly "pan-Buddhist.") In the table of contents (TOC) and index, I see neither ishta/ista-deva* nor yidam. However, in Ch. 11, "Buddhist Practice: Meditation and the Development of Wisdom," in the subchapter entitled, "Tantric visualizations" (pp. 260-7), there are about two pages' worth of text under the sub-subtitle, "The yi-dam" (pp. 261-4). There's also a three-quarter-page picture ("Plate 11: A Tibetan image of the Heruka Yamantaka and his female consort," p. 263) associated with the text (p. 262). The sub-subchapter starts: "A yi-dam is a particular holy being who is in harmony with the practitioner's nature, and who will act as his tutelary deity." I've scanned the text rather closely and do not see any mention of ishta/ista-dev*.
• Fischer-Schreiber, Ingrid, Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Michael S. Diener and Michael H. Kohn (trans.) (1991). The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-520-4.
  Feel free to discredit this volume as POV from the get-go given that it's published by Shambhala Publications. Also, I don't think it meets a strict application of WP:RS. That said, I and other WP editors have resorted to it when desperate for vaguely useful information (e.g., see Trailokya). There's no entry for ishta/ista-deva*. For Yidam, there's an entry (p. 253) that starts off: "Tib. lit. 'firm mind'; in Vajrayana Buddhism, a term for a personal deity, whose nature corresponds to the individual psychological makeup of the practitioner." In the second paragraph, it does mention ishta-devata: "Tibetan Buddhism does not particularly regard yidams as protective deities (as the personal deities [ishta-devata] are considered in Hindu Tantra); rather their function is as an aid in the transformative process in which the practitioner comes to acknowledge his or her own basic personality structure" (Square brackets in original). No other reference in this entry to ishta/ista-deva*.
• Chicarelli, Charles F. (2004). Buddhist Art: An Illustrated Introduction. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. ISBN 974-9575-54-7.
  I wouldn't have thought of looking in an art book for this until I read your last entry. Interesting idea. Pretty sure this ain't WP:RS either. But, FWIW, since Harvey's been the only RS I've seen cited here thusfar (though I certainly haven't read all entries above — please forgive me if I'm showing my vast ignorance), I figured I might as well throw this in. (Personally, I'd recommend ultimately getting rid of all non-RS from this conversation.) In the TOC and index, there's no mention of ishta/ista-deva*. In the index, yidam is identified on one page: p. 184. The one paragraph on p. 184 describes a full page photo (Fig. 100) on p. 183 of Chenrezig. The sole reference to yidam is in the text's last sentence: "Chenrezig is venerated as a bodhisattva and as a yidam (Tibetan: 'firm mind'), a type of personal deity and, in this instance, a divine protector of the Tibetan people, perpetually incarnating among them in the holy personage of the Dalai Lama."

Well, I think my contribution here is done. Sylvain, I appreciate the heart, knowledge and intelligence that you put into your main page and talk page edits. Having reviewed google hits, WP linkages, and a non-scientific sampling of texts (including one of the best-known WP:RS Buddhism intro texts), I personally would vote for a WP page entitled Yidam — whether it be this or another page; what to do with the seemingly less well-known, less well-sourced ishta-deva I'd leave for its advocates to contemplate and act on. That said, I claim no more than my one vote, recorded here.

I'm overdue for yet another wiki-break. Feel free to e-mail me if something needs my attention or follow-up. I wish you good things, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The question was never whether yidam shows up more often than ishta-deva in general--clearly that is so. The question is whether yidam is used to describe Vajrayana meditation deities outside the Tibetan context as ista-deva is, and the answer is no. Ista-deva (unlike yidam) is a universal, pan-national term, and that is why ishta-deva appropriate and yidam isn't.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Universal? - Sanskrit is not universal language and it was not a language used for teaching in any major Buddhist tradition after the demise of Buddhism in India. Since then Tibetan, and other languages, have been much more important. Besides that, even when Buddhism was flourishing in India, there is absolutely no evidence that Buddhists used the term Ista-deva so it can hardly be a "universal term" in Buddhism. There is at least one Chinese Buddhist website using the term Yidam. [17] Chris Fynn (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The 3 Roots: Secret Refuge vs Ultimate Refuge

My understanding is very poor in this area, but isn't it so that the 'secret' tends to refer to the subtle body - and when referring to a three-fold formulation, it is more normal to refer to the basis, path and fruit anyway? If this is a rendering of the four-fold formulation of outer/inner/secret/ultimate, then surely the trikaya belongs to the ultimate refuge, not the secret. I don't have a published source to hand but I'm pretty certain that the secret refuge would normally be channels, winds and drops?

An early translation of Milarepa states "Breath, nervous energy and life-force are three. these three are the secret refuge. I delight in taking refuge in them"

"The Stages of A-khrid Meditation: Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition - Page 33": "The secret (refuge) being the psychic channel, wind and bindu ..."

Also, Patrul Rinpoche states, in the Way of Great Perfection: "Crownned with the Three Jewels of the outer refuge, You have truly realised the three roots, the inner refuge; You have made manifest the three kayas, the ultimate refuge." - So here the identification of the Trikaya as being anything other than the ultimate refuge is refuted by Patrul Rinpoche himself. ( google of relevant page )

Tthe Rigpa wiki concurs with me - Rigpa's page So this suggests that it is wrong regardless of tradition. I will make the changes accordingly

(20040302 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

For some reason, I see that table of the three roots on the article has gone back to what I corrected it, with no reason given. Therefore, I shall revert. If any editor wishes to dispute this change, just write something down first! (20040302 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

Vote on Yidam page

Larry Rosenfeld has made a suggestion which might help with this inpass: "I personally would vote for a WP page entitled Yidam whether it be this or another page; what to do with the seemingly less well-known, less well-sourced ishta-deva I'd leave for its advocates to contemplate and act on". Larry has recorded his vote and I'm adding mine to it.

I suggest that we create a Yidam page (or more precisely, we use the current Yidam redirect page) for an article on Yidam as used in Tibetan Buddhism. Anyone who wants to work on an Ishtadeva (Buddhism) page is welcome to continue working on this one here.

So far, that's two votes for. Any more votes for or against? Dakinijones (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a number of editors knowledgeable about Vajrayana to weigh in. Of course my vote is "no" to a move or separate yidam page.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern about using Yidam is that it is specific to Tibetan Buddhism, however Shingon Buddhism has the same basic form. Review for example some of the Shingon meditational deities on this web site. We really do need a common vajrayana concept for meditational deities which crosses or at least cross references both Tibetan and Japanese uses. There may still be some less well known chinese or korean forms too. So the Tibetan term Yidam would less appropriate to use to describe the Japanese usage, and the Japanese terms less appropriate for the Tibetan, yet if you review the deities they have many in common. So then a sanskrit term has the advantage of being neutral between the two major streams of vajrayana. I support keeping the content here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ishta-deva is no more used in Shingon buddhism than it is in Tibetan Buddhism. Ishta-deva + Shingon book search. Which is why I originally suggested 'meditational deity' which is the English language term most commonly used for 'yidam'. As far as I can tell, Shingon texts speak only of 'deity'... which would seem to fit quite well with 'meditational deity' as an article title. What do you think Owlmonkey? Do you see any problem with moving the page to 'meditational deity'? Dakinijones (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A thorough literature review in English over the last hundred years will demonstrate that tutelary deity is the term scholarship has rendered for yidam and ishtadevata. Actually, in English the earliest term was Fetch or Fæcce which comes from the Norse. I propose a general discussion within 'tutelary deity' and the 'rasa' (Sanskrit) of specific traditions discussed within an article of the title of the indigenous language-specific term that exhibits notable diversion or difference from the anthropological/ethnographic mean. 'Meditational deity' as an auspice term is unsound as Yidam are NOT always invoked/evoked through "meditation" as most people envision the discipline (excuse the "envision" pun) *hehhehehehe*. This is going to sound trite from the Hummingbird, but overt-Sanskritization is cultural hegemony.
Whats left is right!

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, tutelary deity is an unfortunate comparison in my understanding of the subject. That seems closer to dharmapala and lokapalas, but maybe there's more to that term. Doesn't surprise me though that greek and norse concepts would be used to understand the buddhist ideas at first in the west. I'm fine with whatever consensus decides for this article really, but it does seem like there are various disadvantages with each name. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• For. A separate "Yidam" page to resolve this seems like a good idea to me. (I'm one of those Sylvain1972 asked to weigh-in.)

Rationale ~ There is an important difference between Tibetan & Newar forms of Vajrayana and the East Asian forms. Al the East Asian traditions of Vajrayana seem to be based on the Outer Tantras (Kriyayoga, Charyayoga, Yogatantra) where the meditational Buddhas are visualized as external to the practitioner, worshiped and one receives blessings from them. The Tibetan term "Yidam" is generally used in the context of Anuttarayogatantra (or Mahayoga, Anuyoga, Atiyoga tantra in the Nyingma) practice where one visualizes oneself as the Yidam - and there are all the sages of creation and completion.

It is generally used in the context of Anuttarayogatantra (or Mahayoga, Anuyoga, Atiyoga tantra in the Nyingma) practice because that is mostly what is practiced. But it most definitely is used in the context of the Outer Tantras as well.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Newar Buddhism also contains Anuttarayogatantra practices - though these are confined to the Vajracarya caste amongst the Newars and outsiders are not initiated. These days there are many Newar monks in some "Tibetan" Buddhist monasteries in Nepal (particularly Sakya) - so I don't think they would have any problem with the term. (Some Anuttarayogatantra practices like Hevajra are found in Chinese - but the practice of this tradition in China came there from Tibet). Buddhists in Ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan, Arunachel Pradesh and northern areas of Nepal use the term "Yidam" - I don't know what the corresponding Mongolian term is but it is likely to be derived from the Tibetan since their tradition is based on the Tibetan.

Also the Tibetan Yidam (yi dam) is not a translation of the Sanskrit ishtadevata - though some people conflate the two. I'm not a Sanskritist and don't have a Tibetan~Sanskrit dictionary to hand but I'm sure the Tibetan word lhag pa'i lha "special diety" would be closer to ishtadevata.

IMO the term "diety", Tibetan "lha", Sanskrit "Deva" - as in "Ishta-deva" is also problematic since diety / lha/ deva can and often does refer to what in Buddhism are considered to be worldly gods such as Brahma, Shiva or local dieties (which may sometimes be dharma protectors) whereas Yidam always refers to enlightened forms. Similarly the Thirteen Buddhas of the Shingon School are Enlightened Buddhas or Bodhisattvas not gods, devas or deities.

There is a nice essay defining the term Yidam by Sarah Harding at http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2005/spring/dharma_dictionary.html

On "three roots": Lama, Yidam and Protector are considered to be the inner aspects of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Lama being enlightend mind (Buddha), The Yidam or dakini transmits or communicates enlightenment (Dharma), and the wisdom protectors support and accompany the practitioner (Sangha).

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - I just checked the What Links Here for this page - there are far many more WP articles (around 50) linking to "Yidam" - (which currently redirects to this article) than there are real articles linking to Ishta-deva_(Buddhism) (around 3 - the rest are re-directs, talk-pages, etc.). So it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of WP contributors in this area are already using Yidam so it clearly makes sense to have a separate Yidam page.

Personally I don't much like using the term "Ishta-deva" in the context of Buddhism at all since it conflates or confuses Buddhist Tantra with Hindu Tantra ~ of course some are of the opinion that the two represent a common single Tantric tradition. While it is arguable that this may, or may not, have been the case in India 800+ years ago, since then the Buddhist and Hindu Tantric traditions have obviously developed quite separately and are not the same. Of course there were Vajrayana & Sahajayana traditions left in India that merged with or became Hindu traditions like the Naths, Bauls, etc. - but these traditions are not considered "Buddhist" so are out of scope here.

Chris Fynn (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say thank you to the people who have been doing some useful work on the page lately. I'm starting to feel like an ishta-deva page might actually be workable and I hope the editors with experience of those aspects of buddhism will continue to work here. However, the 'yidam' material still is not at all sitting well with the rest. Over a thousand years of history doesn't conflate very easily and although I agree with Owlmonkey that there is problems with any of the possible terms, I do believe we need to address yidam as it's most widely known in the West. Since we have a category of 'yidams' with 14 articles in it, it would definitely be helpful to the WP reader to have a lead article on yidams.

By my count, we currently have 3 votes for a separate 'yidam' page, 1 vote against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm against, as it doesn't make any sense to make 2 pages for the same concept - hard to believe this would be compatible to Wiki policy?rudy (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - are the two terms 'Yidam' and 'Ishta-deva' cognate? If so, one is a redirect to the other, _not_ two separate pages. Zero sharp (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. Since a search of "ishta-deva yidam" on google books produced only one hit (and then the terms were in separate volumes of a dictionary) then I'd argue that the two terms aren't completely cognate. A search there on "ishtadeva yidam" produced just 8 English language hits - 6 of them by Ken Wiber who specifically says "yidam" is the Buddhist term and "ishtadeva" the Hindu.

I've already covered this in discussion. Just look in the article for references demonstrating that yidam is the equivalent term for ishtadevata and its minor variants. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By my count, we currently have 3 votes (Larry Rosenfeld, Dakinijones and Chris Flynn) for a separate 'yidam' page, 2 votes (Sylvain1972 and Rudy01) against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it counts, I vote Keep - ie NO need for a separate 'yidam' page, on the basis that Shingon, Chinese, and Indian Buddhist tantra are all active, as well as historic, traditions that have ishtadevata. I don't like tutelary, though I may be persuaded by 'meditational deity'. Tutelary would only work for protectors, as it represents guardianship, or protection. (20040302 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Owlmonkey is happy to go with consensus but voted "keep." So 3 and 3. We also have B9hummingbirdhovering voting for a move to "tutelary diety" and against yidam or meditational deity. So 3 in favor of yidam, 4 opposed. A few points: it is not at all established by that book serach that ista-deva is not used in Shingon. The scholarship in English is nonexistent at this point, but there can be little doubt that it was the basis for the prevalent Japanese term, and clearly Sanskrit terms were familiar to them (one of the main dieties is called "Ishta-vajrinī," after all.) It is certainly light years more relavent than "yidam," which is totally out of context with regard to Shingon. Second, translated terms are rarely exactly cognate, but they are nonetheless indesputably the equivalent term. Look at "samaya" and "damtshig," for instance--they don't mean literally the same thing. Third, I don't think it confused or conflates Hindu and Buddhist tantra to simply acknowledge the reality that they use dozens of the same terms. That is just the reality of the situation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have come too late to have much influence on this matter, but ista-deva is not a Buddhist term. I read Sanskrit and have never encountered it in any Buddhist tantra. Of course, I have nor read every tantra so I cannot say that it absolutely does not exist, but I would suspect that it would be from Hindu influence. Yidam is of native Tibetan coining -- there is no true Sanskrit original. What one does find as the closest in texts corresponding to what people are calling ista-deva is actually adhideva -- which Chris Fynn alone above correctly identified in its Tibetan form of lhag-pa'i lha. The Japanese Shingon would certainly not use ista-deva -- their equivalent to yidam would be honzon although the uesage covers a wider spectrum. I suspect the quotes provided by people for ista-deva in Buddhism are from people who are generally not specialist scholars. There are a number of other fake Sanskritizations used by popular scholars such as anuttara-yoga, dhyani-buddha and so on -- none of these are the genuine original term. If I could have had my say, I would vote for a seperation of the two terms. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible terms

OK... so we have a majority against a separate yidam page but also - as Sylvain pointed out - a majority against Ishta-deva. I propose that we take a look at all possible terms. And first we need to establish what they are. Since we are an English language wiki those terms need to be proven to be used by reliable English language sources before we can consider them. I suggest we do that by the proposer providing a quotation with full reference that demonstrates the use of the term. The rest of us can then either accept or reject the proposed term.

The term I'd like to propose is 'Buddha-form', which I came across recently and is used by Alexander Berzin and Dalai Lama XIV. (Although Bezin currently appears to favour 'Buddha-figure' which we might also like to consider.) Here's a quotation and reference:

Likewise, no matter how busy they are, no matter how many family and business responsibilities they may have, such disciples can find at least a few minutes to maintain the daily continuity of generating themselves in their imagination in the aspect of a Buddha-form and reciting the appropriate mantra.

Does anyone have a technical objection to accepting this as one of our possible terms? We're only looking to establish here that it is a possible term - not that it's the best term. And does anyone have a quote and reference they'd like to offer to propose another term? Dakinijones (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddha-form suggests (very strongly) Rupakaya. I object on that technical basis. How about Meditational Deity ? (20040302 (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

That's not a technical objection but a best-use objection. I'm sure we'll discuss that objection if the term's accepted as one that is genuinely a possible term for this concept as used in the English language WP:RS literature. Do you have a technical objection to the term? As for 'Mediational Deity', we'd be very happy to consider it. You need to offer a quotation of an example of it being used in an English language reliable source and a reference for that source. Dakinijones (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DJ, what do you mean by 'technical objection' ? Regardless, I would oppose Buddha-form. Also, Berzin is referring to self-generation, which is a feature of only those tantras that have entry into a mandala. ishta-devata are found in Kriya (and other) tantras which are not involved in self-generation. Therefore, his usage is narrow, and his choice of terminology is suspect regardless, in that it puts emphasis onto the form aspect of ishta-devata, rather than their nature which (as I understand it in Buddhism) is non-dual wisdom and bliss. I much prefer the far more common translation of 'meditational deity' - see eg, meditations on the lower tantras, (trans. Glenn Mullin), LTWA, ISBN 81-86470-13-1 - where he uses either Deity or 'meditational deity' throughout. Likewise Perrott uses 'meditational deity' In the manual of fire offerings.

Of course, "The wheel of Time" by Geshe Lhundub Sopa, uses Deity OR ishdtadevata throughout - so there is some basis for keeping with ishta-deva / ishtadevata (as you like).

(early) Hopkins uses 'tutelary deity' - though in certain senses only. Tarthang Tulku chose 'meditational Buddha', whereas Tarchin/Roach appeared to favour 'angel' or 'holy angel'. In all, and with consideration, I still prefer either to keep ishtadeva or to use meditational deity - any technical objections ? (20040302 (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for all the great references... any chance you could offer us a quote for each... something that demonstrates how it is actually used? What I mean by technical is I'd just like to review all the possible terms and verify that they actually are terms in use in the English language for what we're talking about. And then after that compare them to see what's the most usuable... But to be honest, although that was my idea it seems like maybe it's too unwieldy or something and I'm not sure that's going to fly as there doesn't seem to be much interest besides me and you. So maybe we should just go for a discussion of whether or not the page should be moved to meditational deity? If you'd like to propose that I've no objections at all. Dakinijones (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DJ, thanks for such a positive response. I am due to go on holiday today for two weeks - so don't hold your breath - but of course I can get references and quotes from all those texts, and several others, such as Wayman, Thurman, etc. The etymological issues are something else. I know that we can't use neologisms on WP, but I wonder if any of those translations capture the meaning well.... (20040302 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

This discussion has gotten rather circular. Ishtadevata is more common than "meditational deity," which barely registers on a google search. It is pretty clear at this point that "deity" and "tutelary deity" are far more normative as the English terms of choice in the literature. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sylvain1972 Do you have any real evidence that Ishtadevata is more common than Yidam or meditation(al) deity in good sources about Buddhism? Actually I think you will find that the term Ishtadevata is now avoided in reliable academic sources - though it may still be used in some popular sources or in older, now outdated, sources. Google doesn't really discriminate. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem with yidam, as I see it, is that the article is about the meditation deity in Vajrayana Buddhism as practiced everywhere, not just Tibet. It makes no sense to talk about yidams in Shingon Buddhism, for instance. At least Sanskrit has a universality. If Ishtadevata is not optimal I am not wedded to it, but I don't think yidam is either.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ether???

ETHER??? DUDE WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT ELEMENT FOR VAIROCHANA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.89.39 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be because the positions of Akshobhya and Vairochana are transposed in many mandalas. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Elements of the Families

In terms of the aggregate of forms of physical phenomena (body), the five Buddha-families are associated with the five elements:

  1. The Vairochana family represents earth.
  2. The Ratnasambhava family represents water.
  3. The Amitabha family represents fire.
  4. The Amoghasiddhi family represents wind.
  5. The Akshobhya family represents space.

Source:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/tantra/level2_basic_theory/buddha_family_traits.html?query=vairochana+element

Sanskrit equivalents for Yidam

@Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, and Joshua Jonathan:

As Sanskrit equivalents for yi dam (ཡི་དམ) Lokesh Chandra's (1976) Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (p.२१४८ ) gives समादान [samādāna] The སཾ་བོད་རྒྱ་གསུམ་ཤན་སྦྱར་གྱི་ཚིག་མཛོད། (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary)(p 615) gives: སམཱདཱནི - ཡི་དམ། [samādāni] and Jeffery Hopkins gives: samādānatva.

Iṣṭadevatā is not found as the equivalent to yi dam (ཡི་དམ) in any reliable dictionary - and it seems Iṣṭadevatā is not at all a term actually used in Buddhist texts.

The citations currently used in the article to try and show Iṣṭadevatā is equivalent to Yidam seem to be very outdated and weak in comparison to these dictionaries.

The use of "Iṣṭadevatā" for Yidam just seems to be one of those many bits of misinformation left over from the 19th C / early 20th C assumption of an equivalence between Buddhist tantra and Hinduism (or that Buddhist tantra is the result of the "corruption" of Buddhism by Hinduism) which continue to be perpetuated. This really needs sorting out.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the University of Oslo online Mahāvyutpatti database:

Sanskrit: dṛḍhasamādānaḥ ; Tibetan: yi dam la brtan pa; Chinese: 意堅畏; 所受堅固

And in the Yogācāra Glossary: ཡི་དམ་ཅན = samādāna

These just confirm what the Sanskit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries say. (again no iṣṭadevatā)

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013) The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (ISBN 978-0-691-15786-3):

"yi dam. In Tibetan, a term often translated as “meditational deity” or “tutelary deity.” In the practice of Buddhist tantra, it is the enlightened being, whether male or female, peaceful or wrathful, who serves as the focus of one’s SĀDHANA practice. One is also to visualize one’s tantric teacher (VAJRĀCĀRYA) as this deity. The term is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term. The etymology that is often given sees the term as an abbreviation of yid kyi dam tshig, meaning “commitment of the mind.” Traditionally, the yi dam is selected by throwing a flower onto a MAṆḌALA, with the deity upon whom the flower lands becoming the “chosen deity.” However, when one receives a tantric initiation, the central deity of that tantra typically becomes the yi dam, with daily practices of offering and meditation often required. Through the propitiation of the deity and recitation of MANTRA, it is said that the deity will bestow accomplishments (SIDDHI). In the practice of DEVATĀYOGA, one meditates upon oneself as that deity in order to achieve buddhahood in the form of that deity. The yi dam is considered one of the three roots (rtsa gsum) of tantric practice, together with the GURU and the ḌĀKINĪ: the guru is considered to be the source of blessings; the yi dam, the source of accomplishments; and the ḍākinī, the source of activities. These three roots are considered the inner refuge, with the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA being the outer refuge, and the channels (NĀḌĪ), winds (PRĀṆA), and drops (BINDU) being the secret refuge."

"The term [Yidam] is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term." OK this very recent source mentions iṣṭadevatā but it doesn't endorse it - we already know that it is sometimes identified with yidam - but on what basis? Chris Fynn (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) → Yidam – This article was previously moved from it's original title "Yidam" to "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism)" on grounds of consistency with other related articles which have titles derived from Sanskrit - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually used in Buddhism and found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it does occur in some outdated western books which conflate Buddhist tantra with Hinduism). The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism - so I am requesting a move back to the original title: Yidam. for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME Chris Fynn (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, Joshua Jonathan, Dr. Blofeld, Rudyh01, Owlmonkey, 20040302, and Larry Rosenfeld: for comments Chris Fynn (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - Yidam is obviously the common name.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support, common name. JimRenge (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As I stated above, it makes no sense to talk about yidams in Shingon Buddhism, for instance. At least Sanskrit has a universality. If Ishtadevata is not optimal I am not wedded to it, but I don't think yidam is either. Yidam is not the common name for meditation deities across Vajrayana Buddhism, it is Tibet-specific.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please place any discussion on the proposal in this section.)

@Anthony Appleyard: Your page move edit summary A page was previously moved from here (Yidam) to Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) on grounds of consistency with other related articles with titles derived from Sanskrit - bu... was truncated. Can you formally close this with the non-truncated reason? Also note that an oppose !vote has been posted since you moved this. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• See just above "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) → Yidam – This article...". Note: an edit comment cannot be edited after the edit is complete. The system may have decided that my edit comment was too long for a buffer and truncated it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• 15:02, 7 March 2008 Sylvain1972 moved page Talk:Yidam to Talk:Ishta-deva (Buddhism) (All of the other "roots" are under their Sankrit titles - in the interest of consistency it seems this one should as well.)

I've been unable to find a consistent Sanskrit term which is an equivalent for Yidam in the sense of a meditation or pledged deity. Of course Tibetan translators frequently translated several Sanskrit terms by a single Tibetan term - not surprising since Sanskrit has more than double the vocabulary (but Tibetan makes up for this because it is a highly contextual language, the same word can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is used). I'd say "Yidam" has already entered the English language - at least in the area Buddhist studies. If people want to use Sanskrit for consistency, I'm not opposed, - but please come up with a proper Sanskrit term that is not a artificial concoction or artificially borrowing a Hindu term which has misleading non-Buddhist connotations. If we are going to do this we may as well use "angel" for yidam and "Trinity" for the Three Jewels (which some translators have done in the past). Please remember that Sanskrit is not used as a primary language of study by any living Buddhist tradition - except, to a small extent, by Newar Buddhists. Some scholars say that for centuries Tibetan the lingua-franca for Buddhist studies throughout most of east and central Asia. Chris Fynn (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan was never a lingua-franca for Buddhist studies in East Asia. I don't know where you got that idea. And yidam, whether or not it has entered the English language, is used only in the Tibetan context. Further, it is extremely common--standard actually--to use Sanskrit as a lingua franca for academic studies of Buddhism--which is just what this article is. Certainly it makes no sense to talk about historical Indian vajrayana practitioners using yidams, or Japanese, etc. I think it would be better to use "meditation deity" than yidam, if you aren't comfortable using a Sanskrit term.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

----

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

Thank goodness. This debate exhausted me back in 2008 and was one of the reasons I wasn’t around in 2014 to support the requested move. I wish I’d known the route to seek a request to move back then but like many editors I have limited time and health to put into understanding how things work behind the scenes. Thank you to everyone who devoted time and thought into resolving what had been such a long running impasse on editing this page. Dakinijones (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yidam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322072203/http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_practice.html to http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_practice.html

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) 17:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Practice category

In Tibetan Buddhism, deities are not self-existing entities like gods. Each yidam both came from a practice text, possibly a terma, and is generated by practice. Each yidam has its own Body, Speech, and Mind. The body is the visualized form, the Speech is their sadhana and mantra, the Mind is their inherent Enlightened nature. To not include the practice category is to reduce the deity to an imaginary being, despite the fact the practice itself is part and parcel of the deity. Tibetan Buddhists speak of "practicing Vajrayogini" or "becoming Padmasambhava." If each Yidam were not itself a distinct practice, Vajrayana would be pointless. I'd point you to deity yoga, a major element of Tibetan Buddhism, but for some reason it's a redirect to a more general article. Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Editor2020 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editor2020:. You're welcome. When I get a moment, I'll probably split out an article on Deity yoga, as it seems to be covered in Vajrayana as well and we shouldn't have two different presentations in two different articles... Other traditions (Bon?) probably practice it as well, so it's it probably not exclusive Buddhist or exclusively Tibetan. Skyerise (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)