Talk:Tibetan Buddhism/Archive 1

External Link Discussion
Does anybody else think the following link is helpful?--FT in Leeds 01:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...


 * No. Especially not when you frame it with the accusation that the Chinese government is hiding something. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a propaganda machine. Whether or not the boy who has disappeared was kidnaped by the Chinese is a matter for discussion elsewhere. Wikipedia deals in facts, and the fact is that no one knows where he is. If you can come up with a link description that meets neutral point of view, you may find more support for the link.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not? I´m not sure about including that particular link to the bbc article, but the mentioning of the controversy about the 11th Panchen Lama would deinitely fit into this article, because it is quite an important subject among tibetan buddhists (the Panchen Lama is traditionally the second highest spiritual leader after the Dalai Lama). Regarding your concerns about spreading propaganda and keeping NPOV: here is the statement of the chinese official attaining the UN COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD in May 1996 regarding the disappearance of the boy:
 * "Mr. WU Jianmin (China) referring to the question of the boy appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, said that in May 1995, a statement had been issued declaring that the Dalai Lama had violated traditional practice by appointing the boy abroad. Since separatists were seeking to kidnap the boy, the parents had become fearful for his safety and requested Government protection, which had been provided. The boy was living with his parents in good conditions." (taken from the summary report of the 299th meeting of the UN CRC: http://www.bayefsky.com/summary/china_crc_c_sr.2991996.php )
 * So there seems to be no question on whether the boy has been taken into chinese custody, only on how to "interpret" that fact.
 * Here is an amnesty report from that time: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170071996
 * here two links to campaign sites for freeing the Panchen Lama: http://www.tibet.ca/panchenlama/, http://www.panchenlama.info/
 * 213.168.105.222 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the question of where the little boy and the new Panchen Lama is should be included in the Panchen Lama article in detail. I agree with HH who the new Panchen Lama is but I would like the article Tibetan Buddhism to stay free from that particular issue. But I don't see a problem with a link? Me 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources
I haved removed faulty information about Srong-brtsan-sgam-po. There is no evidence that he or Wencheng were Buddhists, or indeed that Buddhism was introduced before Khri Srong-lde-brtsan. Also, there is no evidence that Wencheng brought the Jowo to Lhasa. These stories are first mentioned in the Mani-bka'-'bum and the Ka-chems-kha-khol-ma which are 12th century. The inscriptions and historic documents from the time do not mention these facts. Also, the Potala was built by the fifth Dalai Lama not by Srong-rtsan-sgam-po. --Nathan Hill, 17:28 May 23 2005.

Emptiness
This page, or some related page, needs a reference to the doctrine of emptiness or sunnyata. (not sure about the spelling of the latter)

kh7 21:10 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * Wow that was 3 years ago! Seeing Emptiness/Shunyata directly and understanding it logically should be mentioned in a more detailed description of the actual Buddhist practice as a ultimate goal. I hope it is there somewhere. Me 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unified with Vajrayana
Shouldn't this page be unified with vajrayana? -- Error 00:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

An anonymous user had changed the first link to Vajrayana to "Vajrayanalardneo", a non-existing page. "Vajrayanalardneo" turns up exactly one Googlit, which is the wiki page. So I took the liberty to revert that change. However, I'm not too happy with the introductory paragraph now:

"... is the body of religious Buddhist doctrine and institutions the characteristic of Tibet, technically known as Vajrayana or Tantrayana. Tibetan Buddhism includes elements of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana."

First, this has a parse error on "characteristic" &mdash; what was meant?

Second, the first sentence now says that tibetan buddhism is technically known as Vajrayana, while the second says it includes elements of ..., and Vajrayana. Which one is true?

And third, what about capitalization? Is it "Tibetan Buddhism" or "tibetan buddhism" within the text according to the WP rules?

Can somebody who knows Tibetan Buddhism check this, please? Lupo 20:26, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The Vajrayana exists in other places besides Tibet -- Notably in the Esoteric Shingon school in Japan Zero sharp 01:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Vajrayana is the highest form of Buddhism and it is not practiced only by Tibetan Buddhists. Vajra means diamond and yana means wheel or vehicle. Tibetan Buddhism and Vajrayana should be separate pages. Tibetan Buddhism simply talks about the different yanas practiced there where the most attention is paid to Vajrayana. I don't know if this helps anybody. Its common knowledge these days. Me 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Timing
One paragraph says that it was introduced in 173 AD, the following one says the 7th century. Which one is right? I think so clarification is needed. Bah 21:05, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tried to make sense out of the first paragraph--want to check? The dates are still in conflict. heidimo 04:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I used the date from the Padmasambhava page. Looks like there is controversy about the date of this event, so this may not be the last word on the matter.  heidimo  04:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Bah -- After some research I think I can answer your questions. The NYT Manual of Style suggests we capitalize religions, thus "Islam", "Jainism", and "Tibetan Buddhism".  I don't find an equivalent rule in Wikipedia yet, but we should have one.  I'll add a change to Naming_conventions_(capitalization).  Tibetan Buddhism is a subset of Vajrayana so the article is (momentarily) goofed up.  The various dates mentioned (173 AD, 7th century, 9th century) all refer to valid milestones of some type -- the only answer is to add a "History" section where each date can be matched with its corresponding explanation.  I'll start hacking, jump in if the spirit moves you...  - technopilgrim 14:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * As a follower of Tibetan Buddhism for some 28 years I find several points in this article problematic. I think it is mis-leading (I wouldn't say incorrect) to say Tibetan Buddhism contains elements of Theravada. What I would say is the Tibetan Buddhist canons contain many texts in common with the Pali canon. Traditionally the Tibetans have referred to these texts as the "Lower Vehicle" (Tibetan: theg dman, Sanscrit: Hinayana)which has derogatory connotations and is offensive to many Theravadans. The Dalai Lama has dropped the term "Hinayana" and now uses "Foundational" or "Basic" Vehicle. The Tibetan Canons also contain most existing Mahayana sutras & Tantric texts. In this way it is unique in the Buddhist world in that it is the only tradition which contains all of the various paths the Buddha taught. Other branches of Vajrayana, for instance, don't hold all the divisions of Tantras. --Bodhirakshita 22:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you here, Techno! And I do like techno music too! Come back and edit some more! Me 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
Are Tibetan Buddhist allowed to eat meat? What about nomadic people who practise Tibetan Buddhism? &mdash; Instantood 10:28 Feb 4 2005 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't they be? The Buddha didn't teach vegetarianism. He taught equanimity of mind, not aversion or avoidance of certain foods. The vast majority of Buddhists around the world are not vegetarian. They may practise vegetarianism on certain occassions such as special days devoted to specific religious rites or during meditation retreats.

Actually meat & alcohol are used as sacraments in some Vajrayana rituals. --Bodhirakshita 22:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a section on Buddhism regarding Vegetarianism in Buddhist history. Csbodine 19:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Eating meat and the Tibetans! Yes, they do eat meat and it is OK as long as they do not kill the animal. Most butchers in Tibet were Muslims. The Buddha also ate meat. Infact that is how he died. He had food poisoning (poisoined by some guy who didn't like buddha) after eating some offered spoiled meat (i was sure it was a drink). I personally disagree with eating meat but I guess Tibet is a hard place to be a vegetarian unles you want to eat barley and yak cheese all day long! :) (u have to be crazy to be a vegan) Me 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections
notes on Feb 15 2005 copyedits: technopilgrim 22:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * fixed confusion: terton is the guy who finds termas
 * moved minor practices below major practices (we should describe what serious practitioners do before we describe what non-initiates do)
 * combined cham dance section with Bhutanese dance section.
 * removed quotes from around "pantheon". Pantheon need not imply the Greek or Roman pantheon but can have a wider meaning which is appropriate here
 * moved link to Tibetan Buddhist canon to bottom of the "Schools" section where it makes the most sense
 * consolidated external links, particularly the listing of which countries, states, and cities each center has facilities in.
 * miscellaneous tidying up

Red Hat Sect
Not sure where this goes, but I believe this orphan, Red Hat Sect, belongs here somewhere (or should redirect to an article in this series). --Confuzion 11:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should redirect to Nyingma.--Bodhirakshita 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lamaism"
Someone recently removed the word "incorrect" from attributing "Lamaism" as another word for Tibetan Buddhism. After doing some searches on Google regarding the specific definition, almost all of them just say "see Tibetan Buddhism". But I did find one article of note: Encyclopædia Britannica. The free entry states "Western usage of “lamaism” and “lamasery” are, in fact, incorrect terms of reference for Tibetan Buddhism..." but ends there. I'm not going to sign up for a free trial of EB today, so I don't know what the rest of the article states. Does someone with an account on EB want to fill us in on why this is incorrect? Csbodine 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The word "lamaism" is deriving from misconceptions of past researchers/visitors in Tibet. Because Vajrayana emphasizes much the Guru and he seemed to more important than the Buddha, they named Tibetan Buddhism incorectly as lamaism. Later this term was given up and today it is quite unusual or even a term with a negative taste. Kt66 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lamaism is a translation from the Chinese. The Chinese term in Pin Yin is "lama jiao". "Jiao" is the Chinese for a school, as in a school of philosophy. It is commonly translated as "-ism", so we have Daoism for dao jiao, Buddhism for Fo jiao, Legalism for fa jiao, etc. For someone translating from the Chinese it would not be incorrect. --Bodhirakshita 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)--
 * Lamaism is a communist word for the Buddhist practice which they didn't understand. Guru devotion, which is major part of Tibetan Buddhism, see Milarepa was mistaken as a some sort of control over the poor people that the Lamas had when the chinese invaded. Another example of how different China and Tibet are and how they do not belong in the same state. Bad word in the Tibetan community. Me 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Esoteric" and "Tantric"
Menmo's changes to the reason why Tibetan Buddhism is "Esoteric" and "Tantric" just do not sit well with me. There is no explanation as to what an "empowerment" is (the link definitely provides no clues) or why it is important or what makes it esoteric and "tantric" is simply self referential. While I don't have much to add, I would say that it is esoteric because there are multiple levels of meaning (Outer, Inner, and Secret) to nearly every text that requires special instruction or insight. I don't belive that requiring an empowerment makes something esoteric. Of course, according to the introduction to Tantra, something being tantric is automatically esoteric. Any comments/contributions before I make the changes I've just noted? Csbodine 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Empowerment: hopefully somebody would extend this entry to include its meaning in Buddhist tantra! Esoteric means that not everybody can just read a book and understand and practice it. The empowerment is something like a key. Menmo 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tantric: I am not extremely happy with this anyway, but I wanted to change the previous version as little as possible. Buddhism as practised in Tibet includes (sutric) Mahayana, Tantra and Dzogchen. But Tantra is the most visible and probably distinctive feature if you compare with Buddhism elsewhere. If you feel you can improve the wordings, please do so! Menmo 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that Tantra belongs to a category of esoteric teachings. You need initiation from the Tantric master to to read and practice tantric texts or verbal transmitions. Me 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinayana/Theravada Reverts
In regards to the edit marked: (Theravada is not the Hinayana. Theravada includes also Mahayana Teachings. Mostly Theravada is seen as one of 18 Hinayana Schools.) by user Kt66.


 * I would like to see a reference on this. I have never heard it discussed this way, especially given the connotations of Hinayana as 'smaller', 'lesser', and in rarer uses even 'dirty' or 'garbage'. Theravada is certainly a 'Nikaya' school, but I do not know of any categorisation which places it as a Hinayana school save in a derogatory context. -- Hidoshi 07:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Every Tibetan teacher I have seen has stressed that the Hinayana is not to be equated with the Therevada tradition, as the Theravada tradition is broader, as stated. Furthermore, Hinayana is the term that is used exclusively by the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, whether it is derogatory or not, and the article should reflect that. It should stay. Sylvain1972 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, good enough for me. -- Hidoshi 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hidoshi - within the Tibetan tradition as stemming from some core texts from both the Wisdoms lineage of Nagarjuna/Candrakirti, as well as the Method lineages of Asanga, the term 'hinayana' is NOT used in a derogatory manner - in fact such usage breaks the very ethics of these traditions, as well as that of the Brahma Net Sutra. The standard set of 18 Bodhisattva vows (used by most Tibetan Buddhists, and required as a percursor by all high initiations) used in Tibet has specific reference to NOT denigrate or dismiss the practices, teachings, or practitioners of the Hinayana - indeed, the 18,000 Prajnaparamita Sutra makes it clear that any Mahayana practitioner must also be a Hinayana practitioner - Mahayana is a superset of Hinayana, not a separate path - and it is in this light that most Tibetans use the term. There are some western rationales for the Tibetan interpretation (citing theg-smad as a translation, for instance), but the basis of reasoning for Tibetans is that hina- indicates inferior, but inferior ONLY in one respect - in that the path does not lead to Samyaksambuddhahood - something that is agreed upon by all schools. In the end, the term 'Hinayana' is multi-valent - and is possibly to be deprecated due to the lack of clarity left when attempting to reconcile it's usage across the world of geography, culture, and history. But I guarantee that in a general sense, the term is NOT used in a pejorative or derogatory sense by Tibetan scholars. (20040302)


 * Evidence-

Lotus Sutra (Ch.14):

A bodhisattva [...] does not hold other Buddhists in contempt, not even those who follow the Hinayana path, nor does he cause them to have doubts or regrets by criticizing their way of practice or making discouraging remarks.

By the 3rd Century CE, in the ethics chapter of Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the Hinayana texts or traditions, where Trainee Bodhisattvas are instructed not to "disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana".

Candragomin wrote a very influential twenty verse summary of Asanga's Ethics, written or summarised as a set of vows to be taken by a trainee Bodhisattve. The 15th Verse (derived from Asanga's chapter on ethics) cites "rejecting the Sravakayana" as a root downfall. Candragomin's vows were adopted by the Indo-Tibetan Mahayana tradition via Atisha, and are still used today by the Gelugpa and Kagyupa schools.

The 18,000 verse perfection of wisdom sutra (an early Madhyamaka Mahayana sutra) states:

Bodhisattvas should practice all paths - whatever is a path of a sravaka, a pratyeka or a Buddha - and should know all paths.

in the opening verses of the Vimalakirti Sutra:

Reverence to all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Aryasravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, in the past, the present, and the future and

[...] Of bhikshus there were eight thousand, all arhats. They were free from impurities and afflictions, and all had attained self-mastery. Their minds were entirely liberated by perfect knowledge [...]''

Added note on the possibility of derogatory perception of "Hinayana" to the Schools/Tenets section and that sometimes "Sravakayana" is used instead. I have attended an eight day teaching by His Holiness in Zuerich last summer, where this term was used most of the time (at least by the german translator). -- 81.173.138.109 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theravada is just another word to describe the Buddhist practices in certain parts of Asia. It includes some Mahayana and all of Hinayana teachings. It is incorrect to say Theravada is dirty or lesser because it is the basic teachings which could bring you to Buddhahood. In order to become Buddha but come back to help others you need some other practices. Usually a Hinayana person will look for his/her own Buddhahood. A Mahayana person would look for his/hers and others' Buddhahood. Theravada could do both. Me 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lamaism is most definantly a derogitory term
The word Lamaism is used as a way to try to seperate Tibetan Buddhism from genuine buddhism. Lamaism was coined to emphasize the diciple's faith to the lama above the faith in the three jewels of Buddhism: Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. But this is a mistaken understanding as those who follow the Tantric system see the three jewels as embodied in the lama, rather than the lama being a substitution for them. Tibetan Buddhism is actually formed from three different but interpenetrating schools: hiniyana, mahayana, and Tantra.
 * I wrote this above but I think it bears repeating here. Lamaism is a translation from the Chinese. The Chinese term in Pin Yin is "lama jiao". "Jiao" is the Chinese for a school, as in a school of philosophy. It is commonly translated as "-ism", so we have Daoism for dao jiao, Buddhism for Fo jiao, Legalism for fa jiao, etc. For someone translating from the Chinese it would not be incorrect. --Bodhirakshita 05:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing characteristics
I find that the present formulation * belief in reincarnation lineages of certain lamas (known as tulkus) ...   * a practice wherein lost or hidden ancient scriptures (termas) ...    * belief that a Buddha can be manifest in human form, ... is not very satisfactory: Recognition of tulku lineages was introduced quite late into Tibetan Buddhism. Termas are not important in most of the new translation period (Sarma) lineages. And that a Buddha can be a human being is common to Buddhism as a whole (cf. Shakyamuni). I hope that somebody can rewrite this. The main point is, to my opinion, Tantra (and Dzogchen) as well as all that which came from the contact with preexisting Tibetan culture including Bon (all the "shamanistic" aspects). Menmo 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also thought it is strange to say that a Buddha can come as a human and it is a characteristic of Tibetan Buddhism. I would say that it is not. You could say that a Buddha can come in any living form and that is characteristic. I agree hiding teachings may not appear important or happening now days but it is characteristic. Plus we don't know if the Teachers are not doing it. The tulku is a sure characteristic. It is one of the most unique features. Me 01:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate in Tibetan Tradition
There is no mention of the unique debate culture within monasteries

"The Tibetan & Himalayan Digital Library" is a good source

Wikiproject?
I propose that we form a wikiproject for Tibetan Buddhism. Would anyone be interested? Sylvain1972 17:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * what exactly is a Wikiproject (pardon my igs) and what would it entail ? Zero sharp 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is basically just a point of organization for users who edit Tibetan Buddhism articles. If the community of knowledgable wikipedians has a focal point I think it will be easier to focus our efforts, maintain standards of quality and resolve disputes. I've started the page, so please add your name to the list if you are interested: WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism Sylvain1972 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've joined your project. Good idea. I hope you don't mind. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  12:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Butter lamps
Hello I've just recently visited a beautiful temple in Scotland. While I was there I visited the Butter lamp house. There was some info about why the lamps are lit etc. It said that 108 lamps are lit, but 1008 on auspicious days. I meant to find out before I left what the significance of the numbers is, but never did find out. Can somebody please tell me the significance of 108 and 1008? NeilEvans 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 108 is a 'sacred' number, like how u have 13 and 7 and other stuff, u know pentagrams and other weird geometry, shapes and numbers. for example, there are 108 beads in a buddhist rosary (prayer beads).  i forgot the real significance of it, but it has to do someting with praying.
 * Yeah I thought it must be a sacred number, but I wonder what the significance is, I mean why 108??--NeilEvans 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A little research on Wiki provides Why 108 ? and 108 (number). Csbodine 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

what Buddhists call themselves: 'Nangpa'
I think its and important bit and found this paragraph:

We call our religion 'Nangpai chhoe'. 'Nang' in Tibetan or Bhutanese (including almost all dialects) means 'Inside' or 'within'. 'Pa' indicate the followers. 'Chhoe' means dharma, and in Tibetan it also carries the meaning 'to reform'. "We are called 'Nangpa' because we search within our own minds, rather than outside for the truth" ... - I know for sure that the quote of Sogyal Rinpoche is exact.

Source: http://www.kuzuzangpo.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1147516594&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

I don't know yet as how to properly insert into the article Walter Hartmann 05:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Historically Inaccurate Section
Deleted this section: "Tibetan Buddhism exerted a strong influence from the 11th century AD among the peoples of Central Asia, especially in Mongolia and Manchuria. It was adopted as an official state religion by the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Manchu Qing dynasty that ruled China." This is incorrect. The branch of Buddhism the Yuan and Qing dynasty followed was not Tibetan Buddhism, but a different variant. Tibetan Buddhism did play an important role in Mongolia. Intranetusa 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see someone reverted this deletion. I don't have a clue which is correct. Does anyone know?

Moonsell (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it ever permeated the people of China, but certainly a number of Chinese emperors were students of various lamas, so I suppose Tibetan Buddhism was recognized as "an official state religion" at various times. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderlane (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Actually Tibet itself has its present form due to being such a huge influence in China and Mongolia, due to the influence of the great lamas from C. 800 onwards. What bugs me is the editing of this article is so poorly done, and that apparently someone from China keeps editing and reverting the changes to a pidgin form of English. Here is a perfect painful example: "Of all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, none more than skepticism and guru devotion[23] have led it into conflict with Chinese socialism and so invited the genocide of the Tibetan intelligentsia under Mao.[24]" what??? The conquest of land in Tibet had little or nothing to do with guru devotion, and such comments do not belong in an article on Tibetan Buddhism any more than they would on any other religion such as Episcopal or Catholic.

Also it depends on what region you define as China - much of it was ancient Tibet - is Mongolia China? There much of the population is Tibetan Buddhist.

Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, all part of ancient Tibet. Wonderlane (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What school is tibetan buddhism from?
I've been trying to figure this out lately. Is it the Mahayana or Vajrayāna? Is it a combination? Is it not a combination? Does it use certain practices from each? I'm somewhat lost about the school its from and its origins. Does Tibetan Buddhism not associate itself with directly one school of thought? In other words, is it simply a clashing of different teachings into one unified religion? I really think if that it is in this wikientry, it's not very clear. That's why the term Lamaism is bothering me. I'm sure someone said the word has Chinese origins, but Tibet is not in China. Because Tibet is in China, I don't see why it's called Lamism. - User: Cyberman (not logged in)

Vajrayana is not divided from Mahayana in Tibet, although not all Mahayanists are Vajrayanists per se. The Tibetan tradition was rich and complete in systems of philosophical Buddhist argument, tending toward the Indian style of Buddhism rather than the Sinitic. There are traditional elements of the native Bon faith included to varying degrees as well. Lamaism was a term applied by early European academics familiar with only other forms of Buddhism such as Theraveda and the Mahayana of other nations (as Tibet was a closed nation for many years), and lacking any training or expertise in the mantrayana, so really the use of the term is an ethnocentrically derived relic without any sound basis in thought. It has been used at times as a dismissive epithet, in much the same way as some have inexactly considered the Theravedin traditions to be "Hinayana". The word 'lama' is Tibetan and isequivalent to the Sanskrit 'guru'. Tibet is as much a part of China as Hawaii has historically been part of the United States, but with more historical conflict. If diplomacy had worked out slightly differently Tibet might have been a British protectorate. Dorje0000 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are at least a couple valid ways of relating the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana as taught in Tibetan Buddhism. Kalu Rinpoche uses the analogy of a house where the Hinayana discipline is the solid foundation, the Mahayana is the infrastructure and the Vajrayana is the rest of the house. (Luminous Mind : Fundamentals of Spiritual Practice'', Wisdom Publications, 1996, ISBN 0-86171-118-1) Also, Vajrayana has been described as a set of set of skillful Mahayana meditation practices.


 * An American Lama in the Tibetan Buddist Tradition joked with me once that Lamaism might actually be an appropriate term considering how important the student-teacher relationship is in Tibetan Buddism. So, while I suggest that Dorje0000 is correct to say that Lamaism is an ethnocentrically derived relic,I would disagree that it is without sound basis in thought. Having said this, the Lama was joking with me and I would never in a million years suggest calling Tibetan Buddhism, Lamaism.
 * David Picariello 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another lama said: Hinayana is the foundation, Mahayana is the walls and Vajrayana is the roof of the house. Gantuya eng 00:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is absurd and flaw trying to relate Buddhism Mahayana school to Tibetan Buddhism. Bare in mind that, before 1959 Chinese communism invasion, slavery and caste system are part of Tibet cultures. And Buddhism forbids unfair treatment and deny caste system. I am amuse that the wikiepdia entry relate the Tibetan Buddhism with Mahayana. Pdavidp has speak of some truth. In fact, according to Chinese Buddhism history, there is no trait record to show Tibetan Buddhism practice the Mahayana. Thus "Lamaism" are not a joke. In fact, it is a term used for many century in China refer to Tibetan Buddhism. --219.93.152.11 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try as you may to distance Tibetan Buddhism from Mahayana and Indian Buddhism in general it can't be denied that the first teachers of Buddhism in Tibet, Shantirakshita and Guru Padmasambhava were the greatest living exponents of Indian Buddhism in that time. What they taught in Tibet was the curriculum of the monastic university at Nalanda. Both were incumbent at Nalanda before coming to Tibet and Shatirakshita was the Abbot. Also Atisha Dipamkara Srijnana, the reformer, was the Abbot of the Indian monastic university at Vikramashila when he came to Tibet. So Tibetan Buddhism has always been very close to Indian Buddhism including the foundational texts as well as the Mahayana and Indian Vajrayana. Before Atisha came to Tibet he had been teaching Mahayana in Sumatra. I know quite well that "Lamaism" (Lama jiao) has been used in China for centuries but that doesn't mean that it is a correct description of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact in China it is usually used by those who want to create a division between Chinese and Tibetan Buddhists. The 2 can actually get along quite well together as can be seen at Wu Tai Shan in China. Tibetan Buddhism at Wu Tai Shan --Bodhirakshita (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, Mahayana developed from Hinayana and Vajrayana from Mahayana, although each development was underground and inchoate for a long period before it surfaced - Buddhists even say, from the beginning. All three developments were complete and all three forms coexisting in ancient India by the time Buddhim was introduced to Tibet. The three forms complement and enhance each other. Devotion to the guru almost certainly predates Buddhism and was universally accepted in Buddhism by the time it was introduced in Tibet. (See: Edward Conze, A Short History of Buddhism.)

Moonsell (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When Tibetan Buddhists were originally discovered by Western explorers and military leaders the Tibetan Buddhist religion was not known, in fact it was not understood to be Buddhist at all. At that time the name "Lamaism" was associated with what was found in the high reaches of the Himalayas. Now that term is considered to be derogatory, misinformed, and has fallen out of use.

Mahayana, Vajrayana are the vehicles of study of Tibetan Buddhism - yana means wheel. Maha - great, Vajra - thunderbolt, diamond, so Great Vehicle and Diamond Vehicle.

I believe the reason there aren't a bunch of Tibetan Buddhists out here helping you all is because most of the Translators and scholars are trying very ardently to perserve what remains and has been transmitted to the West of the canon, texts, transmissions and to document them in books.

Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AD vs. CE
CE for Common Era is an accepted, non-denominational alternative to 'AD' (which stands for Anno Domini and is explicitly Christian). I don't feel that 'CE' is "wrong" particularly in an article about a non-Christian religion. Zero sharp 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since this question was raised, but either system (CE/BCE or AD/BC) are acceptable, per WP:ERA, as long as they are used consistently within an article. CE/BCE seems to be the prevalent choice in the Buddhism-related articles generally, and I agree with your assessment about the non-Western context, as well. I have changed the remaining occurrence of AD in this article. /Ninly (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Milarepa
I have added now, for the second time, a reference to Milarepa in 'See Also' on the 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. Please tell me why you consider 'Milarepa' to be an inappropriate reference but Mo-ho-yen, who is Chinese, is an appropriate reference. Also, please explain why you consider removing 'Milarepa' to be an 'improve to list'. Jem bac 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because as I said, we can't list everybpdy. I added a link to Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, where Mila and everybody else can be easily found. The category system is your friend. Use it! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect to Mo-ho-yen, he was already there, I didn't add him. His article says the his defeat was "pivotal to Tibetan Buddhism" and he is not listed under the Tibetan Buddhist teachers category. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

as I said

Thank you Ms. E -- the operative phrase here is "as I said". And just WHO are you? You have every right to edit any article. You could question the notability of Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' if you so chose and move the reference to the Category "Other Assorted Theories" because 'We can't list them ALL'.

Your consideration of Milarepa as "We can't list EVERYBODY" in Tibetan Buddhism is telling. One Google result refers to Milarepa as -- Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism. I will not add it again because a third reversal of an edit could trigger mediation.

And as long as you have found the time to edit MY articles and additions, you should find the time to clean up your own. As one person wrote on your Vajrayana entry: "How can anyone trust someone who explains the terms so poorly?" Your entry is currently tagged: This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations" and has been so tagged since July 2006. But I notice that your Vajrayana internal link in 'See Also' stays put.

You are tampering with legends. 125.24.163.195 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac


 * Um, I didn't write any substantial part of Vajrayana. Also, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Oh, and don't forget to login, and you don't OWN "your" article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your own page says: "I noticed there is no article on Vajravarahi so I started one." You are right -- I do not own anything. EVERYBODY owns it and, so far, you are the only one who has revised any of my contributions. I did not attack you personally -- I only questioned your credibility Jem bac 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)jem_bac

I have now read no personal attacks including the section on Examples that are not personal attacks. No personal attacks were involved. I asked you for your rationale and you offered none beyond "Because as I said, we can't list everybody"

Mo-ho-yen is OK but Milarepa is not. Mo-ho-yen wasn't even Tibetan. The 'See Also' list thus already had an historical figure -- I was not the first to add one to the list.

http://bodhisattvas.tribe.net/photos/8261bfd6-ed9d-45cd-ae1f-caf6b0398df1
 * "Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism."


 * "... as witnessed by Tibet's patron saint Milarepa, who was very much assisted by his guru Marpa..." http://oaks.nvg.org/wm3ra19.html


 * "Nine hundred years after his death, Milarepa remains one of Tibet's most beloved saints and prolific poets." http://www.milarepamovie.com/

So I will leave the page alone for now. If I choose to re-instate the Milarepa listing -- for the third time -- under 'See Also' I will request a Requests for Comment and maybe Thank you. Jem bac 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac


 * I have to ask you, Jem bac, why it is so important to add Milarepa. Yes, he is a significant figure... to the Kagyu school. But other schools have their own significant figures. Padmasambhava is not listed. Tsongkhapa is not listed. Once one is listed, how many others will have to be listed? But all three are listed under Category:Lamas which is accessible from the Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, so listing them would be redundant. I could perhaps see your argument if you were arguing for a "short list" of important figures, but you are only arguing for one. That doesn't seem to me to adhere to WP:NPOV - it biases the see also list in favor of a particular school. Even the Dalai Lama is not listed here, why is it so essential to list Mirarepa? A Ramachandran 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Points are well taken. I am working on just such a "short" list -- maybe 10 or less -- tentatively called "Legendary Tibetan Buddhist Personages". Legendary meaning historical, not contemporary. The list is being compiled with the help of a native Tibetan-speaking Geshe with a USA University appointment. It will be irresepctive of school or affiliation. My rationale is to make it so that persons who visit the Tibetan Buddhism main page, and may be exploring Tibetan Buddhism for the first time, will not have to dig deep or read through text to meet the pre-eminent personages including those you mention. And I am open to any suggestions.

Milarepa is now 2 levels deep from the main page under 'Lamas'...and it is quite a grab-bag page. As a person new to WIKIPEDIA, I maybe too casually added some names to a list. I am now trying to structure my reasons for adding any name to a list or creating a new list with greater rigor.

As you will note, Steven Seagal, with no disrepect intended, has a full paragraph write-up on the main 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. WIKIPEDIA has its detractors. Is this a serious attempt at an open encyclopedia or a version of PEOPLE magazine? Such prioritization can only give fodder to WIKIPEDIA critics. I thank you for your comments Jem bac 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac


 * I think this is a good solution. And I agree that Steven Seagal is overemphasisd on this page (there was an editor around a while ago who devoted himself exclusively to making edits about Steven Seagal; that may be the cause). By the way, it would be excellent if you could get your Tibetan Geshe friend to look over some of our Tibetan-language-related articles and naming conventions, etc.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Milarapa belongs here in this article, he was the first enlighten Tibetan as the story goes, but I believe some of Padmasambhava's first 25 students were enlightened in that lifetime too. Some of the lamas have very long memories, as they say, dating back to a student under Guru Rinpoche and to the time prior to our historical Buddha Sakyamuni. Wonderlane (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderlane (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions
I've got huge problems with pretty much the entire content of this Wikipedia entry. It's obviously not written by someone with any expertise in Tibetan Buddhism, it's also obviously not written by a Tibetan Buddhist. People would be far better off going to something like the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) website for accurate information on what this tradition is all about. Otherwise, get one of the many excellent introductory books around (eg, B. Alan Wallace's Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up). This page makes it seem like some sort of obscure, exotic religion, not a living, practical, logical philosophy (which is what it is). At present I've not the time nor the inclination to rewrite this - anyway, I think it better for people to simply to go other information on the web that is far more accurate/authoritative. Besides, I fear that any rewrite would be taken down and reverted to the poor quality article currently posted. Wikipedia is full of useful, seemingly accurate information, but as this entry shows, there are certainly exceptions. So one certainly shouldn't believe everything one reads here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk • contribs) Zero sharp 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NB: I'm the guy who made the previous anon. comment above (have just created an account for myself). I just found that it seems that at least a lot of this article was plagiarised from here:

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/tibetan.htm

--Darkstar9999 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also possible that is just another mirror site that drew its material from here. Of course new editors are always welcome but it will be helpful if the reasons for your edits are as clear as possible - for instance, it isn't clear why you deleted the picture of the monks. Sylvain1972 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material?
172.162.250.24

That link from religionfacts (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/tibetan.htm) above should be looked into. They have a copyright claim on their content. It would be interesting to see who stole from who. Here is the content directly from their website:


 * "Non-initiates in Tibetan Buddhism may gain merit by performing rituals such as food and flower offerings, water offerings (performed with a set of bowls), religious pilgrimages, or chanting prayers (see ). They may also light butter lamps at the local temple or fund monks to do so on their behalf.”

You gotta admit, that is awful similar to our:


 * " Non-initiates in Tibetan Buddhism may gain merit by performing rituals such as food and flower offerings, water offerings (performed with a set of bowls), religious pilgrimages, or chanting prayers (see also prayer wheel and prayer flag). They may also light butter lamps at the local temple or fund monks to do so on their behalf."

Anyone know about this? Did they collect their information from us, or is Wiki using someones copyrighted material without citing sources? (Alternatively, it is nearly plagiarized, depending on the circumstances.)

Hi,

Sorry deletion of the picture of the monks was unintentional (new at this). Might've been a bit hasty in accusing previous writers of plagiarism - as it's quite possibly that that site has copied from here, rather than vice versa. --Darkstar9999 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Have flagged a statement under 'Monasticism' as 'dubious' - doubtful that the proportion of Tibetan population that were monks was 25% over entire period from 16th century to 1959 and no reference is cited. --Darkstar9999 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero Sharp I agree with you. However as poor as my knowledge is, I have studied Tibetan Buddhism for 30 years this fall. This article requires a complete re-write - its terrible. Editing it must be like trying to edit mud to make a lotus.Wonderlane (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you like to do to the article, Wonderlane? Please check the todo list at the top of the talk page and see if you agree. Why not start a new section in the talk with any ideas.Moonsell (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodong and Buton
In the "minor traditions" section, the Bodong and Buton sects redirect to articles with a different meaning, so I edited the link. By the way, it would be nice to have some more information on those sects. Nazroon 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction outline is incorrect
I removed a line on the introduction that said: "The information here is incorrect, please verify", or something to that extent. Nonetheless, actually what it is said in the introduction seems to be quite wrong or, at least, very badly explained. It reads:
 * Tibetan Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition, meaning that the goal of all practise is to achieve full enlightenment (or Buddhahood) in order to remove all limitation on one's ability to help all other living beings to attain this state.

I would say that the main characteristic of Mahayana is to avoid enlightenment (keeping the state of bodhisattva, instead of becoming a Buddha, or attaining Buddhahood) in order to help all other living beings to attain this state (Buddhahood). Only that this postponing is a vow made by Avalokitesvara (the most important Bodhisattva) and not by simple human beings. I would say that one of the main characteristics of Mahayana is the belief and faith in the compassion of the Bodhisattva as a means to obtain illumination (or something like that). Even so that would account only for part of Mahayana, and wouldn't account for the specificity of Tibetan Buddhism, which is what is being treated here. Nazroon 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely disinclined to argue about this, but you obviously have no idea about what Mahayan Buddhism is. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. If you make a statement that the goal of practise is to 'avoid enlightenment', you clearly do not have any idea. This is nonsense, and a good demonstration of the problematic nature of Wikipedia (ie, anybody, no matter how lacking in knowledge, has just as much access to edit entries as anybody else). My hope is that some serious Tibetan Buddhist students will become involved in editing this page, and that we get some quality in it.

This article is a good example (as I said above) of the problematic nature of Wikipedia. Some of what's in this article is very good, some of it very poor. But attempts I've made to get rid of the poor quality/repetitious/inappropriate stuff have been reverted. In addition, whilst many of the latest edits by 'GlassFET' are fair enough, he/she has also taken it upon themselves to delete any links to centres' sites in the links list. I don't consider this to be very fair, in that, for example, the link to the FPMT website has been deleted. This is the largest Tibetan Buddhist organisation in the world, and contains much very good, reliable information (in fact, generally of far better quality than what is in this article). Further, many interested in Tibetan Buddhism would be interested to go to a centre to learn more - so for that purpose the site for the FPMT (which has more centres around the world than anyone else) would be highly appropriate to be listed in the links. The problem seems to be that, basically, it's only the unemployed/under-employed/students, etc that actually would have time to keep coming back and attempting to maintain quality in a particular article (due to the fact that anyone, no matter how lacking in knowledge) can come along and add inappropriate/bad quality material. Then, it seems that because there is no community of people here who are serious students of Tibetan Buddhism, I would pretty much be fighting a lone battle. And continually be forced to engage in debate with people who have no idea on the subject, in order to try to justify why I think the nonsensical/badly expressed/inappropriate/dubious material they've added should be taken down. And even if I do get it taken down, anyone on the planet with a net connection can revert it later. If I can illustrate the point I'm trying to make with a fictitious example: there is a Wikipedia article entitled 'Planet Earth', that has very few editors, one of whom may know something on the subject. Someone adds a quite a long explanation to the article on why it is that the Earth is flat. The one person who knows the Earth is round must then attempt to engage in 'debate' with this person who asserts that the world is flat, before he will allow the material to be taken down, if he ever will (he may be very stubborn indeed in maintaining his view that the Earth is flat). End of long expression of frustration.
 * I don't know who you are, and you don't address to what I said, just said that I have no idea; then, you go on a long, long speech about how so many people is so ignorant around you. Why don't you stick to the point of discussion and see if we can come to a clear conclusion? What do you think? Nazroon 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the point of Mahayana is to avoid enlightenment, but I suppose it depends on which of the multitude of Mahayana Buddhists you listen to and how you interpret what they say.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That certainly seems to be correct, what Nat says. --Klimov 10:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

'Nazroon' I am NOT going to waste my time 'debating' the subject of whether the goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to 'avoid enlightenment'. I may just as well go to a Wikipedia page on 'planet Earth' and start 'debating' with people who claim that the Earth is flat. Do some reading on the subject.


 * You're both suffering from narrow perspectives. Avoiding enlightenment is quite a common idea in East Asian Buddhism (Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism, pages 110f), but not in Tibetan Buddhism. Much of the problem with Buddhism articles is that people assume their version is the only one. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The concept in Mahayana Buddhism is not avoiding enlightenment but attaining enlightenment and then not entering Nirvana until all others have attained enlightenment. There is a clear distinction. The Bodhisattva's final act is to attain enlightenment, then, and only then, to renounce it!--Bodhirakshita (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazroon, I have studied Tibetan Buddhism for 30 years this fall. The goal is to gain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. Tibetan Buddhism is a combination of different yanas all with the same goal - enlightenment. Tibetan Buddhism is not just Mahayana either, it includes Vajrayana, and even Bon.Wonderlane (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Date For Invasion
I believe the date given in this article for the Chinese Communist government's invasion of Tibet is wrong. It was not 1959, but either 1949 or 1950, depending on whether you're talking to the Tibetan government in exile (1949) or the Chinese (1950). See "The Snow Lion and the Dragon," by Melvyn C. Goldstein, U of Cal Press. 99infosponge88.


 * Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. For the record, the invasion of Tibet (or the "peaceful liberation" as described by some people), occurred ca. 1950. There was then a period of uncomfortable coexistence where the government of Tibet was a mixture of Chinese officials and the former Tibetan elite. In the late 50s, there was a popular uprising against China which culminated in the Dalai Lama's flight for India in 1959 and the destruction of the Tibetan elite (except for the Panchen Lama and his circle, who had been close to the Chinese for a long time, so they were not undone until the early 1960s).&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
I'm not really sure how the only image of the interior of a Tibetan Buddhist temple is "unimportant", so I'm re-adding it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is unimportant because is old, bad quality picture taken from imagination or bad memory, is not very informative and unhelpful. I dont know whether it is Tibetan, Chinese or Mongolian inferior. This picture adds nothing to the article. Is good for cheap, pre-WWII adventure stories, but has no important data in article context. So I removed it again. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The artist of the image was a renowned explorer of the region, it is clearly labeled as a Tibetan temple, and perhaps you can explain why you think it is "bad quality"? I notice you have removed six other images from Tibet-related articles, each time simply stating that you personally don't like the image. Please refrain from any WP:Ownership issues, and respect that your personal opinion about an image is one vote in a pool of thousands. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of preferences, personal opinion or label given more then century ago. This pictures have no distinctive details at all. So named "lamas" are only three guys in red clothes. Maybe there are monks, but nor their positions, nor their schools are visible. And they only staying, doing nothing. There are no ritual objects, no distinctive ornament, no characteristic activity, simply nothing. Notability of an artist does matter only in his own field - if his works add nothing to article only its value is taking place wih nice red-colored rectangle. Today any child after seeing Dalailama in TV can make the same pictures, with the same precision. And finishing: this is encyclopedia not a collection of old pictures. If something isn't documentation should be removed. And this pictures are not a documentation at all. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By your standard, there is no purpose to an image of Napoleon II, Saint Peter or anyone else...the point is to show Lamas as they've been portrayed through time. They don't need to be performing a specific action, and on other Tibetan articles you've removed images specifically of actions such as demonstrating Tibetans prostated in prayer, saying that you don't think they're worthwhile. See the problem? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about lamas not history of portraying them, if picture has no value as an additional source of information (art history is other topic) should not be placed here. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"omnipresent"
The introduction says, In perceiving the empty nature of all phenomena as well as each of their relative characteristics, one becomes both omniscient and omnipresent. "Omnipresent" may be something to do with manifestations/ avatars/ tulkus/ sprulku or with Buddha knowing what is going on everywhere and witnessing everything everywhere but the use of this particular word rings alarm bells that I can't quite put my finger on. My gut feeling is that it is misleading. Perhaps it's because people are apt to jump to the conclusion that any old yogi with a touch of emptiness is omnipresent in the same way God is.

Moonsell (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it.

Moonsell (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted from "tenet systems"
From the paragraph, Tibetan Buddhists all follow one or another particular understanding of the true nature of reality, the inherent emptiness of all things, known as Madhyamika Prsangika. I have deleted the words known as Madhyamika Prsangika. There are other understandings of emptiness apart from this one.

Moonsell (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

synonyms for "Vajrayana"
In the introduction, I have deleted the following footnote to "Vajrayana": ''Vajrayana may be cognate with Tantrayana, Mantrayana, etc. amongst many other renderings; though scholars and specific traditions often employ terms in specific ways with particular denotations. There are no true synonyms in English as in every other language.''

The reason is that "Vajrayana" is already hyperlinked and this stuff on terms is a digression here. There is stuff on terms on the "Vajrayana" page.

Moonsell (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

tenet systems - deleted qualm
I have deleted the following paragraph under the heading Study of tenet systems in Tibetan Buddhism

It is not clear whether these four streams ever actually existed as distinct philosophical traditions in India, or if this classification was introduced by Tibetan scholars only after the transmission to Tibet.

The four tenet systems as distinct philosophical traditions in India (perhaps among others) is well-known. Cf, for example, Edward Conze, A Short History of Buddhism.

If anyone wants to reinstate this qualm would they please supply a source for their doubt. Moonsell (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have originally written the tenet section AND that particular sentence. I tried to find the article i had that bit of information from and think i found it: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level5_analysis_mind_reality/four_indian_buddhist_tenet_systems/major_indian_authors_texts_tenets.html?query=vaibhashika
 * Reading it anew, i guess i got confused with this sentence: "There is little evidence, however, that these subdivisions existed in India." Dr.Berzin is referring to the SUBdivisions of what he explicitely calls "the four traditional Indian tenet systems.", like Svatantrika-Madhyamaka and Prasangika-Madhyamaka
 * concluding, i would say you were perfectly right in deleting my unfounded "qualm" :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi 3ö (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Buddha Ideal
I've created this subheading and moved the introductory material to it. This material coherently falls under this heading and was not really introductory. Some better introduction is needed.

Moonsell (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana
In the paragraph:

Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism encompasses Vajrayana (a Sanskrit word that is a conjunction of vajra which may be translated as diamond, thunder or indestructible and yana or vehicle).

I've deleted the words after "Vajrayana" since redundant – this should be in the Vajrayana article, not here.

Moonsell (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava, a Tibetan master
In the phrase, Padmasambhava, a Tibetan master, I've deleted '"a Tibetan master", because he was from the now Pakistan/Afghanistan area.

Moonsell (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nyingma
I've deleted: [Nyingma...] relies on very early esoteric scriptures known as tantras... because it was simplistic and written in a patronising style.

I've deleted the following sentence too: In this school there is a good deal of emphasis placed on meditation. for the same reasons.

Moonsell (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Milarepa
In the phrase, ...Milarepa, an eleventh century mystic who meditated for many years in mountain caves before eventually reaching enlightenment, I've deleted the words after "mystic" because patronising and simplistic.

Moonsell (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist political power
The abstract has the paragraph: ''Verhaegen (2002: p.28) frames the political and economical dynamic within the evolving context of Tibetan Buddhism: Being politically involved from its very beginning in Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism's various schools and sub-sects, in order to further their own interests, had become allied with the hereditary nobility. The aristocratic families, seeking power, influence, and support, increasingly became the secular arms of the monasteries and sects they supported. In time, as the monasteries became increasingly economic and political entities, their power often eclipsed that of their patrons.''

Does anyone know why this material is so prominently displayed, right near the beginning of the article, with no further elaboration? Is the writer trying to imply there is something peculiar about Buddhists being involved in politics or that it has not happened in other countries?

Is there any objection to moving it to the section on monasteries? It certainly doesn't seem to serve the purpose of orienting the reader to Tibetan Buddhism, which is what is needed for the beginning material.

Moonsell (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To Do
Added to do list to our talk page. Moonsell (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this list have the right sort of things on it?

Moonsell (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan terminology
I've added Tibetan terms where I could to the parts of the article I've been able to so far. I'm not suggesting others feel obliged to do it, but am asking other editors to tolerate it. There are two reasons I'm aware of why this is necessary:


 * The lack of standardisation in English terms for Tibetan and Buddhist concepts both means there is too much scope for confusion about what people are talking about unless the Tibetan (and Sanskrit) are added in wherever possible as a reference point, and
 * The lack of citations in the article in general is only partly due to not enough books and page numbers. Without Tibetan and/ or Sanskrit terms it might look to the reader like the article was a write-up by someone of a dream they had.

I've added Tibetan terms in double-doses each time: first a phonetic form, then the Wylie transliteration. There are too many of them to add the word "Wylie:" each time. This would make it all too unreadable. I've just put them there in pairs with a comma between them.

Often, especially where the Tibetan may be most needed, I've added it in the text in parentheses, at the cost of cluttering up the text with jargon. Other times, to leave the text more readable, I've added it as a footnote and am thinking of moving more of these to footnotes. This has a minor drawback too: when you click on the number of the footnote it just takes you to some jargon where you might have hoped for some explanation.

What do people think?

Moonsell (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

lamrim & lojong
I started subsections on these and then realised there are other Wikipedia articles on them. I have linked to those other articles.

Moonsell (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava & Bön
The article has: It was Padmasambhava (more commonly known in the region as Guru Rinpoche) who merged tantric Buddhism with the local Bön religion to form what we now recognize as Tibetan Buddhism.

I would like to delete this very provocative paragraph. Does anyone have any references for it? Please elaborate on how you interpret these references.

Moonsell (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted it. Before reverting, please give references and elaborate on your interpretation of them.

Moonsell (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite accurate. Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet C 800. He engaged in debates which included the display of extraordinary feats, termed miracles. The local religion was called Bön. See this article by Berzin for more information: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/tibetan_traditions/bon_tibetan_buddhism.html

Those aspects of Buddhism that the Bön liked they picked up. Among the educated Tibetan Buddhist lamas today are taught Bön traditions and may even make a special study of them. Wonderlane (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bön and other movements
I have changed the above heading to: "Minor Schools". If anyone would like to change it back, please cite and explain the evidence for Bön being a movement in Tibetan Buddhism.

Moonsell (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bön deletion
I have deleted the following: ''The Bön religion, which predated Buddhism in Tibet and remains distinct from it, has now been formally honoured by the Dalai Lama as the fifth religious tradition of Tibet. Bön practitioners honour Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as their founder instead of Shakyamuni Buddha.''

Of course, Bön is relevent, but it is redundant since duplicated on the Bön page. Who is this pushing Bön out there anyway?

Moonsell (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

derivation of non-Nyingma
The article has: Padmasambhava established the Nyingma school from which all schools of Tibetan Buddhism are derived. This seems to ignore the later influences of Indian Buddhism on Tibet, e.g., Atisha and Marpa. I propose to delete the words after Nyingma school. Please elaborate on objections.

Moonsell (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What should be in the introduction?
Does anyone have ideas on this?

Moonsell (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's missing in this article?
What do people need to know about Tibetan Buddhism? Does anyone have ideas on this?

Moonsell (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana
I have moved the following two paragraphs from the "Vajrayana" section to a Vajrayana stub in the subheading, "General Methods of Practice":

''It is said that Vajrayana practice is the fastest method for attaining Buddhahood, however this is only the case for advanced practitioners who have a solid and reliable grounding in the preliminary practices (which may be categorized as renunciation, Bodhicitta and Wisdom, specifically, the wisdom realizing emptiness). For practitioners who are not qualified, Vajrayana practice can be very dangerous, and will only lead to increased ego problems and more suffering if it is not practiced with the pure motivation of Bodhicitta.''

Even for the qualified advanced practitioner, a specific Vajrayana practice should only ever be followed on the basis of receiving the appropriate initiation (also known as an empowerment) from a lama who is fully qualified to give that initiation.

Right at the beginning of the article, there is a link to the Vajrayana article, so we only need stuff here that distinguishes the Tibetan practice from others. Hence this structure. Is it OK?

These Vajrayana paragraphs still need rewording and referencing.

Moonsell (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)