Talk:Vajrayana/Archive 1

Somebody please rewrite...
...the first section. How can anyone trust someone who explains the terms so poorly? Mandel June 30, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
 * Attempted improvements: Vajrayana isn't a school. The "three yanas" don't include "Theravada", as such. Vajrayana not really a 'subset' of the Mahayana 'school', as vajrayanists study widely in all the Mahayana schools. I'm afraid this edit felt a bit like butchery; I'll have a pop at the second paragraph separately, in the hope that this will make it easier to revert my efforts.


 * --MrDemeanour 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vajrayana texts
Shouldnt there be a sectiron about vajrayana texts ( sutras,tantras ) etc. And links to external sites that have vajrayana texts .Farhansher 8 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
 * Any cononical Vajrayana texts that aren't tantras are also texts that non-tantric schools of Buddhism accept (Sutra, Vinaya, Shastra). So you are asking for a section about the Tantra; this exists already.
 * If you are asking for a catalogue of Buddhist tantras, it might be hard to get a definitive set (according to some traditions, they are numberless); and it's not clear what the 'regular' reader would be expected to make of a list of names of Buddhist tantras. Since those to whom these texts have been properly explained are generally bound to maintain some degree of confidence/secrecy, people are stuck with the titles of the tantras, their alleged authors, and some handwaving stuff like that.


 * I don't know what we are supposed to do about this, unless some non-vajrayana philologist who understands the language wants to come along and expound the tantras to folks who are is considered by vajrayanists to be incapable of understanding the explanation. And how could someone with a "correct" knowledge of the material revise it, without breaking their vows?


 * I think a decent explanation of the philological/anthropological/whatever view of what is known about these texts would be fantastic. I have only one reference of that kind though:
 * David Snelgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Shambhala Press, ISBN1-57062-973-0
 * Very interesting, lots of footnotes, quite a lot of repetition. Very good (in my ill-informed opinion) on the relationships between the different classes of Buddhist tantras. Large section on the connections between Buddhist and Shaivite tantra, and some serious discussion about the origins of the practices. Some material that is rather explicit, and that probably should be considered off-bounds to practitioners, unless they have the proper permission.
 * I'm not tantric - I think you are supposed to have some realisation of emptiness before it makes any sense to try to approach tantra; but such teaching as I have had was all aimed in a generally-tantric direction.


 * --MrDemeanour 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you are more or less right. It's impossible to have any substantial ability in one's practice of Buddhist tantra without a strong grounding in both emptiness and bodhicitta. Of course, there are plenty of practitioners who do NOT have such a grounding, and I guess it would be rude or provocative to tell them that they are not tantrics! The classical source for differentiation of the tantras is a Tibetan historian called Bu-ston; his works are still relied upon by academics from the East and West. Of course, there are many other issues regarding Tantra - for instance, is the mere mantra recitation tantra? We find similar 'dharanis' for warding off snakes and so on even in the Pali canon. I could waffle on for pages.. (20040302)

"Should..."
"Secrecy is a cornerstone of tantric Buddhism, simply to avoid the practices from harming oneself and others without proper guidance. One should realise that it is not even allowed to explain the full symbolism and psychology of the practice to the un-initiated, so obviously, this leads to misunderstanding and dismissal. Tantric techniques may initially appear to consist of ritualistic nonsense; however, it should only be practiced on the basis of a thorough understanding of Buddhist philosophy and strictly following the traditions."

It is not the place of wikipedia to tell people what they should and shouldn't do.

Also this passage is POV. There are many people who think that the policy of witholding religious teachings from the uninitiated is more for the benefit of the teachers, the hierarchy, than of the disciple, because it makes the disciple politically dependent on the teacher. For instance this was the reason for Nichiren's hostility to Shingon. Nichiren said (at least according to the way his teachings are interpreted and taught within Soka Gakkai International) that enlightenment depended on the individual's faith rather than on a mastery of techniques or on intercession from others. I assume that there are other Buddhists and Buddhologists who take a similar view (analogous to Luther's objection to the obscurantism of the Catholic Church) and who would therefore have the a similar objection to the Vajrayana position.

Some relatively minor rewording should be enough to keep everybody happy :-) Ireneshusband 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vajra
Anyone knows what Vajra means? I couldn't find it, and i think it should be mentioned in the very first of the article.Janviermichelle 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I've just addressed this; folks might see fit to move my remarks to a new (stub?) article. -- MrDemeanour 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhahood vs nirvana
This curious sentence was recently added: It should also be noted that the goal of the Mahayana and Vajrayana is the attainment of Buddhahood, whereas the goal for Theravada pracitce is liberation from the cycle of rebirth in Nirvana.

Did I miss something in Buddhism 101, or isn't attaining Buddhahood the same as liberation from the cycle of rebirth...? Jpatokal 01:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I thoroughly don't know, but many people would say they are not the same. They are making a distinction between arhatship and Buddhahood.  To be clearer, Buddhahood is seen as a type of arhatship, i.e. a type of liberation from samsara.  Ideally, this should be reflected in the article. - Nat Krause 02:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There are 3 types of Buddhahood: Sravaka, Pratyeka & Samyaksam Buddha. See the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana - --Bodhirakshita 03:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear to me that you can have gradations of Buddha-ness. Awakenedness isn't supposed to be composite, so it's hard to see how you could break it down. If an Arhat is not considered by (some?) Mahayanists(?) to be a real Buddha, then I think that is something that should be said. I think Jpatokal's 18-month-old observation ought to be addressed somewhere, but I've no idea which article is most appropriate.
 * I don't know which kinds of Buddhist think that Arhatship is not a kind of Buddhahood, but I know that some take that view. I'd like to know which Buddhists take which view, and what their reasonings are.
 * --MrDemeanour 21:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Vajrayana Buddhists make a distinction between enlightenment (Buddhahood, cessation of all illusion and confusion) and liberation (cessation of the illusory ego). The Theravada term of 'enlightenment' is the same thing as the Vajrayana term of liberation. What Theravada sees as the goal, Vajrayana sees as the first step. Hope this clears things up.
 * --Zormal 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zormal! Actually I'm familiar with the distinction that vajrayanists make; I'm curious as to whether other buddhists make a similar distinction between arhats and samyaksambuddhas. I'd also like to have some better understanding of what the difference is. As I understand it, it's to do with the removal of progressively more subtle veils of ignorance - but what do I know :-)

MrDemeanour 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychedelics and sex.
Can we please delete that? It is ridiculous and that source has been proven to be incorrect. Crowley has mentioned that the khatvanga entering a skullcup looks like an inverted mushroom. Well he's wrong. The Heruka tsog puja text (which contains the process) clearly states that the khatvanga melts into the skullcup, therefore making it impossible to look like a mushroom. The whole inner offering is the offering of emptiness, so I don't see how emptiness could possibly have anything to do with 'magic mushrooms'. He also forgot to mention how the rest of the process is related to mushrooms, so he clearly picks out what might make sense and takes it out of it's original context. That is just one example of how flimnsy his evidence is.

As for the sexual refernce, it only is symbolic and therefore should explain the symbolism instead of what's there. It is not a central practise of Vajrayana, as Lama Tsong Khapa gained enlgihtenment without it.

Jmlee369 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And where to put this?

 * Love and Passion in Tantric Buddhist Art


 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.113 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Entheogens
Why was my addition of a bullet point (with citation: http://www.earthrites.org/magazine_article_crowley.htm) noting the potential use of entheogens within Tantric Buddhism deleted?

Response: First, "theo" means "god", and buddhism is a non-theistic religion. (Deva/yidam is a different thing) Then most gurus are explicit against drugs, even if there is some use of alcohol as "samaya substance". Even if this is a true secret vajrayana practice (which I sincerely doubt), an encyclopedia entry should not expose esoteric and controversial knowledge about its subject, but what is publically known. Third, the article referred does not conform to academic standards of quality, and is seemingly just a sensationalist piece. If some aknowledged scholar in the vajrayana made the comment, then the possibility would have to be acredited. Since "Mike Crowley" is vastly unknown and have never been even quoted or cited in any of the works on vajrayana I have read, it seems to me his opinion should not be publicly related to vajrayana.

I am the second one to have deleted the reference. I don't know who first did it.

Response: First, if you'd prefer the word "psychedelic," that's fine. I was using the term "entheogen" to abate controversy. I meant it in its loose sense, which generally uses the root "theo" to refer to anything that approximates the divine, but psychedelic may work better. Second, Wikipedia is full of controversial interpretations of historical writings. As long as they are acknowledged as such (as I did) and supported with references (as I did), I see no problem with mentioning them in an encyclopedia. I've seen some real unfounded nonsense on here pass for vaguely argued "possibilities," and mine is certainly a cut above most of them. Third, your ad hominem attacks on the author of my reference hold little water. Mike Crowley may not be a well-known scholar, and he may have merely posted his book online instead of going through the proper channels of publication, but his argument is more than sound if one gives it the chance. Furthermore, his work is online and freely available for scutiny if anyone chooses to click on the link.

I've been deleted again. Your bias is disgusting. You are the reason why many people rightfully hate and fear the democratic nature of Wikipedia.


 * This is not bias. It is an application of policy. Please read WP:V. Web sources are not permitted. I have no objection to the inclusion of the information as long as you can provide a reputable source. Ekajati 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Mike Crowley pages are definitely filled with supposition and hypothesis mixed up with fact - and his authority is questionable. His understanding of Abhisheka and Amrita is particularly limited, and his correlation of Amrita with Soma is mostly mistaken. Regardless, there are rare (very rare!) instances of drugs being directly mentioned - not the drugs that Crowley talks about - not in the way in which Crowley specifies - and certainly not as entheogens - but for other purposes. This is not the place to discuss such things. As a general rule, I concur with Ekajati etc. regarding the placement of the Crowley pages - it is more likely to further confuse what is already a largely mistaken area of practice and study(20040302 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Response: I do not think this is a topic which needs to be discussed in a highly public forum like wikipedia. However, the use of entheogens in the Vajrayana tradition has been well documented in reputable sources by such respected scholars as Ronald M Davidson, William George Stablein, Bulcsu Siklos, David B. Gray, Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, Shashibhusan Das Gupta, Francesca Fremantle, Shinichi Tsuda, David Gordon White, Rene de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, James Francis Hartzell, Edward Todd Fenner, Ian Baker, Dr. Pasang Yonten Arya and others. If you would like additional information you can contact me by writing to "thecontemplative" *at* *yahoo* *dot* *com* Thecontemplative (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Prettifed too much?
Why? Revealing it's cultish won't hurt ppl reading but will bring some light on those poor females. Vajrayana is a combination of Buddhism,Hinduism,and Shamanism. The Definition as a sect of Buddhism is not accepted by many Buddhist. Mea Culpa (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Countries?
I'd like to see some info about which countries vajrayana is practiced in today? Hohohahaha (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be some information on Nepal and Newari Buddhism which is a separate Vajrayana transmission from the Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese schools of Vajraryana. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan buddhism not Vajrayana?
"Vajrayana is seen as adding to the general Mahayana teachings for somewhat advanced students." This statement is unsupported by reference and doesn't accord with my understanding as a 10year Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana student... which doesn't mean I'm not wrong... but I'd like to see a reliable source for this. Dakinijones (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh... interesting... I see Berzin refers to it in exactly those terms... I'll see if I can get a ref in though to make it reliably sourced Dakinijones (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "General Mahayana" does not contain typical tantric techniques, so it would be correct to say that Vajrayana adds something, no? rudy (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you - but not sure how to phrase it. Any ideas? Feel free to jump in and edit! BTW thanks for that shift of the Tantric techniques material... makes much more sense to me now... before it just looked like a jumble of practices, now it reflects the actual Tantric process Dakinijones (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Tantric Techniques?
Does anyone object if I move the bulk of the material in Tantra techniques section to the already linked main article page Tantra techniques (Vajrayana)? Think Deity yoga etc more relevant there. Dakinijones (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But why? rudy (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - I mean that 'tantric techniques' is the essence of tantra; tantra IS basically a technique of meditation.rudy (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my previous comment below... your excellent re-shuffle of the material made that section make sense to me. I meant to withdraw suggestion. Dakinijones (talk)

Relationship with Mahayana
Under this heading, we had:

''From this view the Hinayana and Mahayana are provisional and compromised aspects of the Vajrayana - rather than seeing the Vajrayana as primarily a form of Mahayana Buddhism. This view is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, where it is taught that ultimately one can only become a Buddha by practicing tantra (even if only for the very last step of the path).''

I've deleted the last sentence. Pabongka Rinpoche's lamrim has: The secret tantras are said to be even rarer than the Buddhas.(Pabongka Rinpoche; Ed. Trijang Rinpoche, transl. Michael Richards (Revised edition, 1993). Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand. Wisdom, 649. ISBN 0861715004.) Tibetans believe that enlightenment occurs without Vajrayana but that it takes aeons.

Moonsell (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Newar Buddhism?
As far as I am aware, there is no sub-school of Buddhism like Newar Buddhism. What is generally practiced in Nepal is Hinduism which includes the Buddha as one of the Avatars. To present this as a sub-school of Vajrayana is quite wrong. The influence came from Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism (from the mountain areas).rudy (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia article on Newar, about 15% of them are Buddhists. Searching Amazon for books written about Newar Buddhism brings up a couple of hits, such as this one. My impression is that Newar Buddhism is a topic which has been largely ignored by Western scholars until a recent flurry of interest.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience in Nepal is that people in the plains are basically Hindu. When they say they are Buddhist, they seem to use it just like the expression of 'Shivaism' or so, actually what westerners would consider a tradition within Hinduism. I made the above note because I deleted a new paragraph without content in the main article. If nobody has any knowledge of this, we should certainly not make a new empty paragraph in the article... I suspect the 'flurry' is caused by a few individuals with little experience in Hinduism and Buddhism - I've never heard a scholar about this yet.rudy (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Newari Vajracaryas are an incredibly important group for those interested in the study of Vajrayana. Almost all of the Sanskrit texts relating to Vajrayana which exist today were preserved by the Newars (there are a few palm leaf manuscripts that were preserved in Tibet as well, but these are inconsequential when compared to the mass of Sanskrit material preserved by Newars). It is truly unfortunate that the Newari Vajrayana tradition has received very little attention in the West. However, there has been some excellent work done in this area by scholars like David Gellner, Todd T. Lewis, Siedfried Lienhard, John K Locke, and Bruce Owens, any and all of whom should be consulted on this topic.Thecontemplative (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Link

 * A Study of Traditional Vajrayana Buddhism of Nepal That link today doesn't work anymore.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.24 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation
Truthbody just violated the 3rr rule again. second time already. Where to report it? He doesn't seem to listen to anything but himself. Greetings, Sacca 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the admin page. I am simply undoing your reversions of my valid edits, not reverting any of your edits. I am listening (and in fact I am the one who for the past five days have been requesting you on your talk page to discuss) but you haven't given me any specifics whatsoever as to which edits are inaccurate. If you do so, on the talk pages of this article, and show my edits are wrong, I will edit them -- or you can edit them yourself or give a different POV. All these things are possible on Wikipedia, but just automatically pressing the undo button on every single one of another editor's edits is not following wiki rules e.g assuming good faith. (Truthbody (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

You don't want to understand the wikipedia edit policy. you are pushing your own POV, cannot be stopped by anything. Your sources are bad, they should not appear on wikipedia pages, if its only once it can be forgiven, but all your sources are from the very same sect and publisher, you fill whole articles with them. They do not belong here. Greetings, Sacca 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I say above. I have not pushed my own POV once, my edits are all based on secondary sources. I have edited many Wiki articles and used a wide variety of sources. Please give specifics so there is something to discuss.(Truthbody (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The purpose of the 3rr rule is to show some restraint. And restraint is precisely what you are lacking. You are so convinced that you are right and your sources are good. But they are not usable for Wikipedia articles. When your edits are reverted you keep pushing them back into the article. That's precisely what the 3rr rule is for. We need scholarly sources, not religious discourse. Greetings, Sacca 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring complaints may be reported to WP:AN3 by any party. Warning, it is common for the complainant to be blocked if they have also participated in the edit war. I suggest that everyone stop edit warring and stick to the issues, pledging to work them out and resolve them to the satisfaction of both parties. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported Truthbody to WP:AN3. I was also close to reporting Sacca as well, but to date he's stayed within the 3-reverts-a-day rule. Jpatokal (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article does not quote just academic sources but also practice sources such as the Dalai Lama, Alex Berzin and Tenzin Palmo. Since this is so, why is it not possible to quote from the valid source of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books? Perhaps Mistube would give clear reasons why the inclusions he or she has deleted are incorrect or inaccurate. Perhaps they would also like to say why Geshe Kelsang's works are unreliable while the works of other practitioners are not? Actually, it is Mistube who is being partisan and sectarian for no justifiable reason and his or her actions are leading to an unnecessary edit war. If you examine Geshe Kelsang's books you will find that they are mainstream Buddhism, not a partisan view. Speaking of partisan, your use of the word 'inherent' and 'inherently' is a partisan view because few Vajrayana practitioners, unless they were Shentongpas would assert that Buddhanature and Buddhahood exist inherently, yet you do not say that your view is partisan.

If you have reasons, give them, otherwise why delete information that improves the article? Buddhism is based on logic, not emotional reaction. I'm giving you a chance to have your say. If you do not give any valid reasons, I shall re-include the material in the next 24 hours.

We should practice equanimity here, either replacing all the references to practice sources with academic sources, or you should allow quotations from the valid practice sources of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as he is a respected author and Tharpa Publications is a respected publisher. I await your reasons.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct answer is "replace all the references to practi[cal] sources with academic sources". This is a core policy for all Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, I completely agree with you. But also we cannot have an article where all the vajrayana teachings are explained from Geshe Kelsangs perspective. Truthsayer and -body and emptymountain could make a small subsection in the aticle explaining about Geshe Kelsang, but they cannot enter those teachings in all parts of the article. Greetings, Sacca 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "we cannot have an article where all the vajrayana teachings are explained from Geshe Kelsangs perspective" is quite an exaggeration! "they cannot enter those teachings in all parts of the article" = separate and unequal? What Wikipedia policy is that based on? I have only added one quote from GKG in all these articles, when it seemed appropriate. See the before and after here. I don't see how this is "taking over" the article, flooding it with quotes from GKG. This is the explanation I gave on the AN, and so far no one has faulted the edit on its own merits: The Bodhisattva article itself says, "Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category." Did you know that Manjushri also became a Bodhisattva by first cultivating shepherd-like bodhichitta? Yet, the DL quote says, "there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment." That is why I think it is incorrect, no matter who said it. Thank you. Emptymountains (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sacca, perhaps you could explain why Geshe Kelsang's view of Vajrayana is different from everyone else's? Could you explain where he diverges from mainstream Vajrayana teachings?  He doesn't.  The basis of Geshe Kelsang's books are the teachings of his Lineage Gurus (who were the same lineage Gurus of the Dalai Lama, for example) and in particular the works of Je Tsongkhapa who was greatly praised for his clarification of Tantric practice by Teachers of other traditions.  Do you have any valid objections to the technical content of Geshe Kelsang's books? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You say he doesn't diverge from mainstream Vajrayana. But who are you? We need scholarly articles here, not personal opinions. We can discuss but in the end what we need are high quality references. Your kind of discussion will bring us nowhere at this point. Find scholarly quotes first please. This is the attitude we use here at Wikipedia. Greetings, Sacca 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is you who have made the statement that Geshe Kelsang's books are not high quality references but yet you have provided no evidence to support your view. Geshe Kelsang's books are WP:RS academic sources because he is a scholar who has studied and meditated on Vajrayana his whole life.  You cannot answer my questions on how Geshe Kelsang's teachings diverge from mainstream Vajrayana and you cannot raise any technical objections to the material, therefore I'm wondering what your objection is. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books are academic sources (as he trained at the monastic universities in Tibet). Not Western academia -- however Wikipedia does not practice cultural imperialism over eastern academia. Moreover, thousands of Westerners train in the study of these books, and they have been used in Western academic courses. So they are qualified in this respect too. Plus, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if we remove GKG as a source, we also have to remove Tenzin Palmo and the Dalai Lama and every other Tibetan Buddhist teacher from Wiki articles for the same reasons, which would be a great shame.(Truthbody (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC))


 * No monastic universities are religious institutions, not academic institutions. Of course his followers study those books. Catholics would read books by the pope, that doesn't mean his books are academic. Ok lets remove the other sources too then and replace them with good sources from academic publications. We should end this quickly.Greetings, Sacca 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked, and more than 2/3 of the sources cited in this article would have to removed. Seems like an extreme reaction, especially when you consider this would have to apply to all other related articles. I think it makes more sense to consider each citation on a one-on-one basis and ask ourselves whether it contributes to the article. I am not sure about the "all or nothing" approach being suggested here. Emptymountains (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quotes where the opinions of the Dalai Lama, GKG, Mickey Mouse etc are presented as their own opinions are fine. However, attributing statements like "This meditation causes dualistic appearances to subside into emptiness" or "The moon is made of green cheese" to self-published sources is not appropriate according to WP:RS.


 * The fundamental problem with this article (and many, many other articles about Buddhism) is that different sects and different people have different opinions, even about the fundamentals. The only way out is to be very careful in attributing statements: instead of "A is B", it should always be "according to X, A is B". Jpatokal (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to what you say, Buddha's original teachings, the basis of all these articles, would have to be considered a self-published source.  Buddha was not an academic, so you're saying we couldn't use Buddha's teachings as the basis for an article on Buddhism which is completely absurd!


 * The whole point about these topics is that it is those who are practising and gaining experience of the these teachings who have the greatest insights so it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'practice references' from these articles. What kind of articles would we have if we removed all of the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist sources from Buddhist articles and all sources from the Pope and other Catholic writers from articles on Catholicism? Very poor articles, I would think.


 * On the subject of what is POV, elsewhere Sacca accuses Truthbody of including POV edits because he is including material from Geshe Kelsang's books but as I understand it, Sacca is a Theravadin practitioner. If Sacca makes edits according to Theravadin view, aren't his edits POV?  Simply including a view from one school of Buddhism isn't POV because that's reality - Buddha taught many different and at times seemingly contradictory views.  There is no one 'right' view except about common subjects such as a the Four Noble Truths.  There are many disagreements between Theravadin and Mahayana.  If Sacca and Mitsube have objections to the content of Truthbody's edits they should make changes but to just revert for no logical reason is against the non-partisan stance of Wikipedia, surely?  If they have valid technical objections to the content of the edits, these can be discussed but without justification their objections seem themselves to be POV, discriminatory and sectarian. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal experience is not verifiable and thus not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Again, quotes from notable individuals are acceptable as illustrations, but you can't use them to "prove" a fact. Jpatokal (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats no true. This is about Vajrayana, while Truthbody and you (same person, sock puppet?) are adding stuff from NKD only.


 * Also I am theravadin but if you care to look, I only use scholarly publications as references, not the kind of self-published material as is published by Geshe Kelsang. Theravada has a lot of that too but since it is mostly unsuitable for usage on wikipedia i use it very (VERY) sparingly. You use only self-published stuff, you add no scholarly quotes at all. That maks your additions just bad and partisan.


 * What you are doing is like using the pope to explain the teachings of christianity. You can't do that. The pope is catholic, you might be able to use the writings of the pope in the catholicism article to a limited extent, but not in the christianity article without adding the positions of protestant and other movements. Especially since Geshe Kelsang started a seperate movement outside of Tibetan Buddhism and is still condemned for some of his practices by mainstream tibetan buddhism.


 * Try adding info from other sources, scholarly stuff. We don't want self-published references here. Greetings, Sacca 10:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, with respect, since you are Theravadin and don't accept the Mahayana teachings of Buddha, why would you be trying to dictate the contents of an article on Vajrayana? Secondly, NKT is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition that practises Vajrayana.  Do you have detailed knowledge and experience of Vajrayana?  Your statement that Buddhanature is inherently existent, for example, is incorrect.


 * I have examined the references for this article and what I find is that most of them are non-academic, Buddhist writers like Reginald Ray, Tenzin Palmo, the Dalai Lama, Robert Beer and so forth. Geshe Kelsang is also in this category and his teachings are mainstream Buddhism, so where is the problem?  Why are you saying that this is a self-published source?  If you have a problem with the technical content of the edits, discuss it with Truthbody.  I am not a sockpuppet of Truthbody but I feel very strongly about this issue.  As far as I see it, it's about my Teacher and my tradition being judged by people like yourself.  You do not have a right, any more than the Dalai Lama does, to dictate what is valid and what is not valid when it comes to Buddhism.  Everyone who has knowledge, experience and valid references can edit these articles, including Kadampa practitioners and if you have a problem with the technical content of the edits (as I do with yours) you can discuss.  You don't have a right to stop anyone from editing and improving this article. You are trying to set a precedent about who can edit this article and what they can include. This is partisan and you don't have the right to do this. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, all those bad references have to be either removed or replaced. We do not want those in the first place, let alone that we want to add more of them. I am sorry, but your or anybody elses experience and knowledge doesn't count. It has to be verifiable, thats the thing that counts. You can have a lot of experience with Vajrayana, that doesn't matter if we cannot check the things you say. And the writings of Geshe Kalsang are unsuitable for checking the correctness of the statements you are adding. Find other sources. Check acedemic articles, academic books on Buddhism. Greetings, Sacca 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jpatokal, for reverting my edits. That's actually what I was hoping would happen, because I also agree it's a nonsensical approach that Sacca, Mistube, and others are suggesting (i.e., "all those bad references [i.e., non-academic source] have to be either removed or replaced"). Emptymountains (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, but there is no policy which requires sources be academic. The primary requirement is that they be reliable. Mainstream publications in the field may also be used. Publishers like Snow Lion, Tharpa and Wisdom are certainly mainstream within the field of Tibetan Buddhism. However, since Tharpa was founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, anything said about him in a Tharpa publication may not be objective. However, what he may say about Buddhist practice is certainly valid. If it diverges too much from the norm, then there will be multiple sources which present the majority view and GKG's view should be removed or clearly presented as minority in the context of presenting multiple views. What's going on here appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, which is not really a good thing. Pure academics can never give a complete view of spiritual practice, as the results of practice are experiential and cannot be evaluated by someone who is not engaged in them. This leads to frequent inaccuracies and outright mistakes in Western academic approaches to Tantric Buddhism. Material from the practice side is in my opinion necessary to present a neutral view of the subject. Will in China (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this seems to be sensible approach, thanks for your input. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary by User:Mitsube
The edit summary on a recent edit by this user is misleading. It states "Restored neutral, sourced version of confusing paragraph if there must be such a paragraph". This is not what the edit did. Instead, it introduced an unsourced statement "This classification is part of the teachings of Vajrayana Buddhism, and is not recognized by Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism" and changed another sourced statement so that it no longer accurately represents what the source states, namely the phrase "not historically accurate". The source is not so bold and only notes that the account is disputed, not that it is definitely inaccurate. Please read the sources before changing statements based upon them. The edit also introduces quotation marks around "turnings of the wheel of dharma" implying that this is the only part of the sentence supported by the source. It is not, the whole sentence is supported by the source. Therefore there is no reason for quotation marks.

Perhaps another editor could review the change and revert it if they determine that the edit does not really do what the edit summary claims. Will in China (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I have been unclear. I was restoring a version of the paragraph almost identical to mine from an early edit, but it was in a different place then; . It was under "vajrayana as fruitional vehicle" then. Also the source kitagawa says regarding the historical claims that they are "absurd": . Did you miss this? Mitsube (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

work in progress
I will work more on the 'classifying Vajrayana section', now it is still incomplete, what's there isn't referenced also so not so dependable.Greetings, Sacca 08:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to be critical, but are you unaware that Devanagari is the classical alphabet of Sanskrit and that you therefore removed the original Sanskrit word for Vajrayana? Second, the phrase "it should be noted" should never be used in an encyclopedia. It usually emphasizes an opinion of an editor rather than anything useful. Third, you've removed a comprehensive introduction and replaced it with a poorly written hack. "This schematism"? That's a very poor choice of word and since it the subject of the first sentence of the section, seems to refer to nothing in particular.


 * Unless you or someone else can improve on these changes, I'll be reverting them. Will in China (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead should give an overview of the important aspects of the subject, not a disclaimer that falsely implies that little is known (maybe in India where your source was published, but certainly this is not true in US and Europe). I've revised the old lead to be more accurate and based it on non-practitioner sources, of which there are many to choose from. If you believe any facts in the lead need further sourcing, please use citation needed tags. Thanks! Will in China (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Devanagiri alfabet is - just like the roman alfabet - one of the ways in which one can write sanskrit. No reason to include it, it adds no value just clutter to the text. Different peoples wrote sanskrit in different scripts.

Also you removed too much well referenced info. Especially the role of ritual, the problems for scholarly research. I removed the turnings of the weel info but you can add it at another place in a shortened form. It is just a classification, we have a subsection for that now. The intro should be brief, you made it much too long. Greetings, Sacca 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Most articles titled with a Sanskrit word give the Devanagari, it's useful information. You yourself removed much information from the lead which maybe you didn't notice but which I cited to better sources. Please check the sources before reverting. There may be "problems" for your Indian writer, but there is a lot of scholarship in the US and Europe and those criticisms are inaccurate. In any case, it's simply been moved, not deleted. The three yanas and "turnings of the wheel" are critical elements and belong in the lead. Also, please see WP:CRIT, criticism in not usually placed in the lead, which is for definitions of the topic, but rather either integrated into the article text or in a separate section. Will in China (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see now you changed the references. Problem I see though is that the text hasn't changed. You make a reference to 'three turnings of the wheel', how serious should I take that reference? What does it apply to? I imagine to just the term 'three turnings of the wheel'. In that case what is the use of the reference? To prove that the term exists? What about the content of the text around it? How serious are you with these references?

What do you mean indian writer? I used a Japanese scholar and a Canadian one. None of them is indian. I will have aother look, also at where you put the info on ritual. thanks Greetings, Sacca 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My sources support at least whole sentences. Sorry, I meant Indian publisher.


 * I see you've reverted again. I'll be taking your edit warring to WP:ANI. Will in China (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WillChina,


 * You edit of the introduction is nonsensical. You want to inser 2 paragraphs in the introduction about the classification of Vajrayana, while there is already subsection called 'Classification of Vajrayana', which starts immediately under the introduction. To be ideological is sometimes ok, but in this case you are pushing over the limits.


 * I will have to change it back, this revert is about having a logicl stucture in the article, not about ideology. The content can stay, just not in the intro.Greetings, Sacca 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The views expressed are not ideological. They are from neutral academic sources. It was my understanding that Wikipedia operates by consensus. Are you saying that you instead own the article and get to make the decision by yourself. I think other editors besides myself may object to that. Will in China (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your stance is ideological, not the info. The 2 paragraphs are ok for in the article, they are in fact already present in the article. They just do not belong in the introduction. You take it too personal. Greetings, Sacca 20:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs have been there for quite some time. I didn't write them, only improved them. I still think they should be there and you have not sought or obtained a consensus to remove them. Edit warring to remove them, as the 3RR warning says, won't work. Will in China (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Give your reason for refusing to have this info under the heading 'Classification based on Vajrayana scriptures and commentaries'. I'd be interested to know. Greetings, Sacca 06:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vajrayana as evolved from the local conditions of Medieval India
Will China attempted to change the text in the subsection called [Vajrayana as evolved from the local conditions of Medieval India], to make it more like the Vajrayana views. However the text below it is strictl based on the references. WillChina, please do not change the text without reading the reference in the actual book, you are claiming the books says things which it does not. Greetings, Sacca 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
It cannot be expected that my edits are going to be popular with followers of Vajrayana. However I want to see this article display NPOV. Previously it was heavily slanted to Vajrayana POV so some correction is due. As you see I am just using scholarly publications, others are free to join in. I am sorry this has turned to a somewhat bitter enterprise, but that will not deter me. If work on the intro is made impossible, there are always other sections of this article to improve. Greetings, Sacca 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I want this article out of start-class (which is the lowest-quality grade for an article) and move it to B status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment   Greetings, Sacca 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Grade
Sacca's definition of "scholarly publication" is itself highly biased and limited.

Frankly, if you omit both Western scholarship by practitioners and sympathizers of Vajrayana -- of whom there are many at major universities around the world -- AND scholars from within the tradition itself, you cut off the actual truth of what Vajrayana is in favor of a seriously biased and incomplete, not to mention erroneous view.

For example -- "The distinctive feature of Vajrayana Buddhism is ritual, which is used as a substitute or alternative for the earlier abstract meditations" is just plain wrong, not simply misleading, but factually incorrect. And that's quite apart from whether you "believe in" Vajrayana, which is arguably not a neutral POV. It's hard to believe anyone could seriously maintain that statement in this day when so much reliable information is available. I could cite thousands of works by the above mentioned Western scholars, not to mention native scholars of Buddhism, that flatly contradict this assertion and get at the objective truth of what Vajrayana is and is not. But why bother if the academic purists are just going to challenge it and edit it out.

Given this, it's probably best that this article stay forever at the lowest level of quality rating. Splitting it into two separate articles from the two different points of view, both equally objective and neutral, might be a way out. But that's probably not something that Wikipedia could actually consider. djlewis (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is actually true. Tibetan Buddhists do not engage in many of the meditative practices of early Buddhism, and in particular do not pursue the jhanas, see B. Alan Wallace, The bridge of quiescence: experiencing Tibetan Buddhist meditation. Carus Publishing Company, 1998, pages 215-216. B. Alan Wallace is a practitioner of Vajrayana. Mitsube (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Tibetan Buddhism definitely has more ritual, but I find it hard to accept that that is a "substitute or alternative" for anything particularly. I see it as more of a support for different meditation practices, mostly abstract kinds of meditation actually. So is that statement acknowledging that the rituals are a meditation practice primarily or saying that it is mere ritual without meditation? Personally I think the visualization techniques are likely equivalent to or similar to early buddhist techniques just in different forms, but that's my conjecture. Sure the Tibetans sometimes draw distinctions with early buddhist approach... but that to me seems sometimes to be more directed at their own students to provide a progressive path not really to say that they're doing something fundamentally different than early buddhists. They might be characterizing early buddhist technique as a straw man to then critique with mahayana arguments more than really doing something different fundamentally. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also see the visualizations as a kind of meditation. Specifically regarding the jhanas, these are specific states which are not pursued in the Mahayana generally. See Jhana. Mitsube (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * None of this shows that ritual is a "substitute or alternative" for anything.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, to me it seems very logical that if you introduce one practice, which takes up time and effort, it has to come out of the available time and effort which is available for other things. When I was in India I saw that the Tibetan monks are very much engaged in ritual - full time. They spend all day performing full-body prostrations (thousands of prostrations a day) in the Maha Bodhi temple, whereas Mahayanic and Theravadan monks and nuns are much more likely to sit/walk meditation. In terms of practice the Tibetans are doing one (ritualistic) practice in stead of something else. There was also this practice with grains of rice which they spread out and then colect again, in a very devoted, formal and ritualistic way. Greetings, Sacca 07:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they spend more time in overall ritual + practice than sutric monks do. I have no idea. We would need a pretty sturdy citation for this.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There seem to be two such. Mitsube (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's still a leap to me to generalize that ritual takes the place of meditation or is any kind of substitute. In my experience, the physical actions are combined with mental/internal visualizations and contemplations, and often also include a sub-vocal yet quitely spoken component. So what's happening is the meditation has body, speech, and mind components all concurrently - but it's still a meditation practice really. This is instead of just sitting there quietly sure. So then what is ritual? are we talking about the physical actions that are part of the meditation approach? or some kind of physical action that does not have a mental/contemplative component? And if you visit Nepal and you see someone doing prostrations you're probably not seeing the elaborate linage tree visualization that they're maintaining in their mind nor hear their refuge recitation that is being muttered quietly. To suggest that Tibetan prostrations are not a meditation technique is only from not knowing what's going on at the same time... - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitsube, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Which citation describes how much times Tibetan Buddhists spend total on ritual and practice?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to the two cited after the sentence. I now agree with you both that the sentence should be softened. Meditative practices and pure meditation are definitely major aspects of Vajrayana, even if there is less emphasis on the simpler practices of some other forms of Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Section 3.3.3
Section 3.3.3 is called, "Vajrayana as the sorcerer’s discipline". That doesn't seem appropriate, does it? Is anything in that section valid? Thanks. 99.9.112.31 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)NotWillDecker


 * I think you can find something about that in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (or possibly it's the Routledge one). Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, MEB (Volume Two), page 876. Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Tone of Article
The tone of this article is inappropriate. I refer to the article on Protestantism whereby an article depicts a major grouping within a religion in a similar vein to the Vajrayana as a major grouping within Buddhism. That article has achieved a C rating where this remains at start-class so it can be assumed that they are doing something right. What is very evident in their article is the lack of either criticism or promotion of Protestantism from those inclined towards Catholicism... whereas this article in places reads like a hatchet job of anti-Vajrayana sentiment sourced from scholars who spent the majority of their career working with Theravada source materials or who have written popular Buddhist books only. It may also be that there is material here that isn't sufficiently well-sourced from academic sources and is overly reliant on the self-identification of Vajrayana practitioners. Certainly there is material here that would be unintelligible to those who are not themselves Vajrayana practitioners and such obscurity is in itself inappropriate to the tone of the article. In any case, all pro-Vajrayana or anti-Vajrayana material needs removing from this article since the tone of the article should be entirely neutral. Better to have a much shorter but glaringly neutral article. A good start to neutralizing this article would be removing the whole "Classifying the Vajrayana" paragraph in its entirety. --Dakinijones (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give specific statements whose tone you disapprove of? Mitsube (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could some one state the relation between Tibetean Vajrayana and Hinduism and Buddhism as well as local Shamanism? Is it a mixture of Hinduism and local Shamanism in a Buddhism shell as many other Buddhists states? When a group of People is not allowed to access wikipedia, wikipedia's tone will suddenly against them cos they don't have the ability to edit... This is the TRUE power of wiki. Now chinese mainlandians are allowed to access, time to make things clear. Actually normal Chinese people think Tibet Buddhists is protected by govenment. E.g. they don't even need to follow state policy like birth control. And question them is not allowed in public. Mea Culpa (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Vajrayana v. Esoteric Buddhism
This article seems to conflate Esoteric Buddhism with Vajrayana. Outside Tibetan Buddhism and Newar Buddhism, are there any other traditions of Esoteric Buddhism that consider it to be a separate vehicle from the Mahayana? Shingon and the other eastern esoteric schools do not consider the esoteric path to be a different vehicle. Nor was the Esoteric Buddhism practiced in Srivijaya considered to be separate from Mahayana. For that matter, the Esoteric Buddhist lineages in Southeast Asia do not (as far as I am aware) consider themselves to be Vajrayana as a vehicle, nor Mahayana. They are more like a combination of Theravada Buddhism, Esoteric Buddhism, and Daoism. In my view, this article should either be divided into several different articles which are more specific (but what page titles?), or the page should be renamed "Esoteric Buddhism" or something with similarly broad and inclusive meaning. As it is now, the article gives the impression that Vajrayana as a vehicle is fundamental to Esoteric Buddhism, and this is not at all true across traditions. Tengu800 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tantric Theravada/Yogavacara
Does anybody know anything about tantric theravada or yogavacara? Kate Crosby made me aware of the work of François Bizot mainly in Cambodia before the khmer roughe in her 2000 Contemporary Buddhism review article on Bizots work. A short description could be found here: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundedResearch/Pages/ResearchDetail.aspx?id=145695 --Guttormng (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bucknell and Stuart-Fox quotation (Note 6)
The quote from Bucknell, Roderick & Stuart-Fox, Martin (note 6) in the terminology section also appears in the article for The Twilight Language (both articles cite the same page in the same book), but the quotes are slightly different. In The Twilight Language article the phrase "Tibetan sects" are used where it says "Tibetan lineages" in this article. Perhaps someone who has access to the source book (The Twilight Language: Explorations in Buddhist Meditation and Symbolism. Curzon Press: London. ISBN 0-312-82540-4) can find out which is the real quote and edit the appropriate article. 212.31.160.205 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
Vajrayana in India, and Tibetan Vajrayana both had/have Madhyamaka view. In fact Ronald Davidson, in his famous "Indian Esoteric Buddhism", says that Madhyamaka allowed Vajrayana to develop in the first place. Yet there is not one mention of Madhyamaka in the entire article ! Ecragnol (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please plunge forward and edit the article! Jpatokal (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although this has definitely been the case in India (before extinction) and Tibet, what about Shignon etc. Do they also adhere to Madhyamaka view?Ecragnol (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhism info box :relative prominence
The relative prominence of the Japanese Buddhism info box creates misleading impressions for at least one reader. Info boxes are very powerful - to the extent that they perform almost as visual images. As such they need to be either balanced with other info boxes and images, or positioned to reflect their relative importance to the topic at hand. The current layout gives the impression that Vajrayana is primarily a variety of Japanese Buddhism. 203.214.39.173 (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Tibetan Buddhism box? Tengu800 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-ordering article
I re-ordered the article, putting history and terminology first, intending to provide a logical built-up for "inncocent" readers. I also put in a few short introductory remarks to subsections. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Gandhagiri
It seems to me that the following section is much too specific for the Vajrayana-article. It details a specific region, while, Vajrayana concerns much broader regions and even whole countries. The information ia also available at the History of Sambalpur article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Gandhagiri
In the 9th-10th century the worship and sadhana of Buddha Sambara, the presiding deity of Chakra Sambara Tantra, gained popularity in the Gandhagiri region. In Gandhagiri which also contained a large number of caves and rock shelters, apparently of the followers of Vajrayana and Sahajayana, the adherents of the cults used to live in seclusion and practice Kaya Sadhana or Yogic practices along with worshipping Buddha Sambara.

The chief deity of Chakra Sambara Tantra is Buddha Sambara, the deity whose worship is still popular in China and Tibet. According to Sadhanamala, god Buddha Sambara is one-faced and two-armed. He appears terrible with his garment of tiger-skin, garland of heads, a string of skulls round the head, three eyes and in Âlidhamudrâ, he tramples upon Kalaratri.

A number of texts relating to the procedures of worship of "Buddha Sambara" have been coposed by siddhacharyas like Darikapa, Santideva, Jayadratha and others. King Indrabhuti of Sambaḷaka/Sambaḷa (early Sambalpur) composed Chakra Sambara Stotra, Chakra Sambara Anubandha Samgraha, Chakra Sambara Tantraraga Sambara Samuchchaya Nama Brutti. Indrabhuti influenced Tantric and Buddhist cult in this region including Gandhagiri region.

This tantric Buddhist culture greatly affected the religious faith and beliefs of the tribal of Gandhagiri. Even today one can notice the invocation of various Buddhist Siddhacharyas and Buddhist deities in the mantras of the tribal to ward off evil spirits or cure some disease. Buddha was worshipped by many tribal in the name of Budharaja. There is also a small hillock at the heart of present day Sambalpur by the name Budharaja.

patently absurd
"Historians have identified an early stage of Mantrayana beginning in the 4th century, and argue that assigning the teachings to the historical Buddha is 'patently absurd.'" I see no connection between the identification made and assigning the teachings to the historical Buddha as being "patently absurd."--Slowlikemolasses (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Vajrayana
What is the literal translation of 'vajrayana?'--Slowlikemolasses (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Vajra=diamond, yana=vehicle. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What is Vajrayana? A faster path to enlightenment
I have a problem with this section which puts the emphasis on the speed factor of Vajrayana when it's chief characteristics are purification & transformation, purifying thought & action & transforming passions & delusions into wisdoms. See http://www.dzogchen.org.au/buddhism.html I think the whole section should be re-written. - --Bodhirakshita 04:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that (like it's roots in tantra) Vajrayana is defined by utilizing often extreme techniques seeking the most efficient means (upaya) to attain its goal (however we might define that goal).Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Second speed-up technique: Esoteric Transmission or Initiation"

"The esoteric transmission framework can take varying forms. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism uses a method called dzogchen. Other Tibetan Kagyu schools and the Shingon school in Japan use an alternative method called mahamudra."


 * This is incorrect on several counts. Dzogchen transmission is not the same as Vajrayana initiation or empowerment. Dzogchen transmission has a different function to Vajrayana. Dzogchen is also found in the Bön tradition & in the Kagyu sub-sects. And again Mahamudra transmission is not Vajrayana empowerment. See the Wikipedia article Dzogchen - --Bodhirakshita 04:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana
''The same argument holds that all Buddhism is primarily a form of Hinayana since Hinyana suttas, and vinaya continue to have importance, and many later teachings have their origins in Hinayana thought. Indeed even Vajrayana practices contain an element of Hinyana in the form of renunciation which the Vajrayana came to see as the quintessential Hinayana practice."
 * This was removed because it is based upon the premise that Hinayana and Mahayana are what they are according to what scriptures they accept. However, this is not the case: Hinayana has as it's goal the Nirvana of an Arhat. Mahayana and Vajrayana have as their goal the Nirvana of a Buddha. This is why it is 'okay' to say that the Vajrayana is a specialised form of Mahayana. (20040302 16:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC))


 * I'm curious, do you know if the Theravada school accepts this distinction? - Nat Krause 10:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The specific distinction (I guess) you are refering to is that between a Bodhisattva and Sravaka? (Mahayana refers to the path of Bodhisattvas, and here Hinayana I took to refer to Sravakayana - or the path of Arhats)? Yes, there is no problem with that.  The Pali canon and Jataka tales assert that there is a distinction between the Bodhisattva and the Sravaka.  Remember, the Pali canon does agree that Sakyamuni was a Bodhisattva before he achieved enlightenment.  Buddha himself said it was not necessary to follow the path of a Bodhisattva to escape samsara, that all one needed to do was to get out, and this is why he taught the Sravakayana.  I do not think that any tradition actually objects to this point.


 * Hmmm, I guess so. It's not that I'm trying to argue that some sect or another is wrong or right or more ultimate or something, or that anybody is malicious (well, "every heart is sinful and desperately wicked").  But I'm still trying to figure out if I can really agree that there is no Mahayana school / non-Mahayana school division.  I'll continue to dwell on the subject occasionally. - Nat Krause 18:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't take it that you were looking for dirt, but to the issue of Mahayana/non-mahayana, which (I believe) is a more interesting discourse.


 * My point above (as ever) was that mahayana is the path of the Bodhisattva, not a group of schools. In this sense, mahayana is recognised by the Theravada and other Nikaya schools (though they may dispute that schools that call themselves 'mahayana' are actually following the mahayana path!)


 * Regarding the division itself, we need to ask ourselves "Is it useful? -Does it serve a good purpose?" If we look 'across the road' to Christianity, at the division into Catholicism and Protestantism - is that a legitimate division of Christianity? And in one sense, the answer is 'Yes' because by definition Protestants have protested against Catholicism, though a quick trip to the List_of_Christian_denominations will show just how reductive such a division is.  Why I brought this up is that I believe that early Western scholars were looking for a similar division of Buddhism as a rationale (e.g. the 'northern buddhists' of China and the 'southern buddhists' of Ceylon), but were possibly faced with the dilemma of attempting to find the "Martin Luther" of Buddhism. Of course, if they did think this way, they missed the point - in that Buddhism has a different cultural background, and is imbued with a completely distinct set of messages than those that are found in the Ibrahimic religions.


 * My working assumption of the distinction between the Nikaya and non-Nikaya schools is based upon the concept of transmission. I believe that the Nikaya only recognise transmission through scripture, whereas non-Nikaya recognise transmission through realisation.  This allows the non-Nikaya to be more creative, adaptive, and dynamic with scriptural elements, in that (if you will) they are more interested in the Spirit of the law rather than the Letter of the law; moreover, because they recognise the idea of transmission of realisation, then who they call 'Buddha' is not just the person who walked and taught in the C6th BCE, but also the consequences of his actions and teachings.   This then allows for the later authorship of sutras, which are indeed spoken by the Buddha, but not in the way that is normally meant by such an idea- the individuals who penned the words 'heard the sutra' through realisation; for them to claim that it is 'their own' realisation would imply the existence of a self that they do not wish - moreover, they could claim, whatever remnants of their self-grasping there is could not write dharma - dharma is the pure expression of Buddha's mind - and in that sense, it is more appropriate to say that the text is indeed authored by Buddha.


 * So following this tirade, the Nikaya, non-Nikaya distinction can indeed be made (by identifying those that agree solely with the Pali or it's equivalents). However, we still need to ask ourselves is such a distinction, on those lines, relavant or useful? It is really clear that e.g. the Pure Land traditions are completely distinct from any of the Tibetan traditions, and certainly in some respects (e.g. Tibetan monastic vinaya) the Tibetan tradition is considerably closer to Theravada than it is to Korean or other Mahayana monastic vinaya, though in many other respects their are other similarities.


 * I wouldn't try to make too clear a distinction between the Tibetan and the east Asian Mahayana. When I went to Taiwan in 1984 I was surprised to find so many similarities in the rituals at some temples with the Tibetan rituals I was familiar with. The Tibetan variety of Vajrayana was the preferred religion of the Mongols and the Manchus when they were ruling China. And it is Chinese custom to practise more than one school at any time. They often don't regard different schools as contradictory but simply as having different functions. For example, people go to a mandala offering ceremony to receive blessings & make offerings. They recite Pureland texts mantras when someone dies or to ensure longevity. Pure Mahayana without Vajrayana is sometimes practised in the Tibetan tradition but it is simply overwhelmed by the preponderance of the Vajrayana. I knew a monk in the Tibetan tradition who was advised by his lamas not to take deity empowerments and to just practise Mahayana teachings. This was his personal decision and there are other individuals in similar situations. It is a matter of personal potential which teachings are best suited.--Bodhirakshita 09:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I had an interesting discussion with an academic the other day about just how cartesian and C19th the whole idea of cataloguing, categorising and taxonomising is; how the mid C20th brought about the ability for us to break out of these absolutist concepts, and yet how incredibly reluctant we are to let go of them as building blocks, and see them just as the patterns that they are - models that are useful for certain purposes only, but no nearer or further from any objective truth than any other model that we wish to use.


 * Hmmm.. Obviously drank lots of coffee this morning! (20040302 11:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC))


 * You have made a good distinction between the Nikaya & non-Nikaya but what do all these different traditions have in common that makes them Buddhist? There are a number of factors that all orthodox Buddhist schools share. The Buddha outlined 37 factors which he considered prerequisites to enlightenment. They are known in the Pali Canon as the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhamma, the Wings to Awakening. As they are common to the Foundational Vehicle (The Dalai Lama now uses "Foundational Vehicle" in preference to "Hinayana" which has derogatory connotations) & the other schools it not incorrect to say that the other schools are based on the Foundational Vehicle. These factors are what distinguish Buddhism from other religions.


 * A Theravadan article on the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhamma can be found at http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/wings/index.html --Bodhirakshita 08:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well put, Bodhirakshita. (Sorry for the 7 month lag!) Since I wrote this, I have not changed my view-point much - though I further feel that we also see a division between Nikaya and Mahayana on the basis of the nature of a Buddha after death. This is the distinction between Nirvana-with-remainder and Nirvana-without-remainder. After all, according to Mahayanists, Sakyamuni Buddha is still directly teaching and will continue to do so until the end of time, whereas from what I understand of the Nikaya, Sakyamuni Buddha ceased to teach directly on the moment of his Parinirvana. Regarding to the commonality of Buddhism, I guess I would also say that accordance with-


 * The belief that Sakyamuni is (for our time and our planet) uniquely realised.
 * The maintenance, promotion, and study of the Tripitaka
 * The support and maintenance of one of the ancient lineages of Vinaya

In other words, the institutional support and maintenance of the three refuges. I guess this is possibly more contentious, but my personal view sees that as pretty reasonable. (20040302 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

However we are defining Theravada or Hinayana, I do believe the term Hinayana is typically viewed as derogatory and any other term would be preferable and more academic.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable references?
The note at the top of the page from June 2007 saying reliable references are needed seems a little out of date and no longer necessary. What do people think? Do we still need it or can it be removed now? Dakinijones (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A week with no comment... if there's no objection, in a week I'm going to remove the reliable refs needed sign from the page. Dakinijones (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see plenty of references throughout the article. Use after a disputed sentence instead of saying the whole article "needs more references".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference number 7 on Vajrayana Buddism being originated in Bengal leads to a book written by "Banerjee". But it seems to be a broken link and it leads to an ISBN search which is not authentic. Can we remove that?203.99.211.133 (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)§

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Vajrayana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121011100308/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Tibetan+%28Transliterated%29/yongs+dag+bzhi to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Tibetan+%2528Transliterated%2529/yongs+dag+bzhi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120509162419/http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org:80/tantra_practice.html to http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_practice.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Vajrayana in the West (or modern Vajrayana)
It should be added right? How Vajrayana is expanding through the west. I'm ignorant about the details, but we can't deny their advance in less than 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.212.89 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes "Western Vajrayan" different than every other school of Vajrayana? I may be mistaken, but I believe that the vast majority of Vajrayana practitioners in the west are practicing Tibetan Buddhism and therefore it has yet to become its own independent school. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Very few sources on new western found terma cycles. Folks practicing in the west are likely practicing with existing school methods. The unique part is the western school location, students and teacher origins. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical Active Voice
Where specifically are there "too many gramatical errors" in this version, when it has the Active voice? Really was unnecessary to revert, maybe even lazy, could just point out your specific issues or, make changes. The active voice will bring better clarity to the reader here. The reverted version makes is sound like:

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * the Bodhisattva is the only Vajrayāna goal, which is untrue. There are others, as Vajrayana transcends and includes with faithful acceptance.
 * it sets up a comparatively opposite goal with Theravada, which is untrue; because, Vajrayana transcends and includes with faithful acceptance.
 * there is a single purpose, which is untrue, because, Vajrayana transcends and includes with faithful acceptance of the two purposes, benefiting other and self.
 * it confounds empty enlightened mind nature, which is unnecessary.
 * makes "skillful means" as the Vajrayana basis, which is untrue.
 * it puts deities and accoutrements tools to useful employment work, which is ungenerous to karmic acts and actions.


 * Just looking at the last edit |here you might notice that it takes more than removing -ing to make a sentence active voice. "The special tantric vows vary depend on the specific mandala practice for which the initiation is received" is a blatant copy edit error and incorrect grammar. A sentence with proper grammar and passive voice is better than incorrect grammar and active voice (especially since passive voice is permissable). If you take the time to read your changes you will see similar problems |here "Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric in the sense that certain teaching's transmission only occur..." here you use the wrong contraction and make the subject singular but change the verb to not be singular (by removing the 's'). Perhaps you meant teachings' (plural and possessive) but it was still clearer before your edit as "Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs...". In the same edit "a reality side-effect" is less clear than the previous "a side-effect of the reality" especially in the context of the sentence. And of course in the edit you highlighted: "whereas the goal for Theravada practice is specific to become an arhat" specific would need to become an adverb. I have no objections directly to the conceptual content (which is to say I didn't consider it), but your edits made multiple new problems with grammar and readability that other editors shouldn't have to scramble to clean up. It appears that you either don't double check your edits, or that English is not your primary language. Please reintroduce your edits with proper grammar by copy-editing yourself as you go and no one will be compelled to revert your edits.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Voice has to do with subject's or agent's verbs. Where the action is from, originated, or directed. A transitive verb is a verb that takes one or more objects. Contrast with intransitive verbs, without objects. It's a subtle distinction that English articles "of", "the","by" can be reconstructed and redirect the action as Tibetans intend subject object to become same.  With an action agent having articles "a","an". Tibetans have higher frequency intransitive construction occurrence than English, which evolved as a practical trade waring ownership language where object actions become imperative.  Even linguists disagree on nature's proper structure.  Many folks get confused with intransitive because, may see self as separate from agent.  Friends tell me I sound like Yoda.  It's a writer's choice to construct with "of", "the","by", "a" "an".  I should move slower.  Was off on the pluralities. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vajrayana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090529071056/http://www.bttsonline.org:80/product.aspx?pid=165 to http://www.bttsonline.org/product.aspx?pid=165

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Three Turnings and Vajrayana
This article says that 'Vajrayana can also be seen as the third of the three "turnings of the wheel of dharma" '. However, that is not a traditional interpretation, which is that the 'third turning' was the delivery of the Yogācāra sutras. I think this interpretation is uniquely Tibetan. There's another Wikipedia article, namely http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Three_Turnings_of_the_Wheel_of_Dharma, so I propose a minor edit to the text of this article, and a 'see also' link to the second article. I will do that edit, posting here first to see if there are objections or comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikiwand is not affiliated with Wikipedia, any articles there are not Wikipedia articles.
 * Wikiwand is not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.
 * Wikiwand fails our standards for external links on more than one point.
 * If they cite a professionally-published mainstream academic source for their claims, we could examine that source and then cite that for changes to this article. Otherwise, Wikiwand is of no use to or on this site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that. I thought Wikiwand was a skin for wikipedia. Anyway I have now disabled it, but the issue above still stands, I intend to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.20.216 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, this text was deleted by me:

REASON: there are no sources that describe Vajrayana as 'the third turning of the Wheel of dharma'. It is a falsehood. See the Wikiepedia entry Three_Turnings_of_the_Wheel_of_Dharma for the correct account of that subject. Also, the whole article on Vajrayana contains other dubious assertions and glosses which need expert attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs)


 * Those things that say ARE sources.  Clicking the links given in the cite tags in the article leads to "Kitagawa, Joseph Mitsuo (2002), The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture, Routledge" and "Williams, Paul; Tribe, Anthony (2000), Buddhist Thought: A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, Routledge" in the Sources section.  Routledge is an extremely reliable publishing company and almost anything from there qualifies as a reliable source.
 * If you see a blue or purple number after a sentence, like [2], that is a source. Do not delete stuff that has those as being unsourced without verifying that the material is not supported by said source.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia -- that would be circular sourcing, which is no sourcing at all. The article you cite should be clearer that it is largely concerned with the three turnings from a Mahayana (more specifically Yogachara) perspective, while in this article it is concerned with the Vajrayana perspective.  As it already explains, "It later became prevalent in modified form in Tibetan Buddhism and related traditions." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The particular sentence, and attribution, in question, is this: "Vajrayana can also be seen as the third of the three "turnings of the wheel of dharma"" - this provides a link to a source, namely, Page 80 of the Kitigawa book. But that page doesn't support the claim. It does say, at the top, that 'the new movement [i.e. tantric Buddhism] is sometimes called the third yada (i.e. 'tantrayana') - which is not the same as 'the third turning'. It says, further down the page, that 'the Tibetan tradition considers the Mantrayana (a term that I have never encountered elsewhere) a third turning of the Wheel' before saying 'but this is patently absurd'.

I take the point about editing more carefully, and will leave it to someone else to do that, but this section of this article is a complete falsehood to my knowledge (and I have a Master's degree in the subject.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * you're right; Vajrayana is not the third turning of the wheel, but a third yana.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vajrayana. 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/20160304102508/http://www.cnet-ga.ne.jp/kenta/mitsu/mitsu.html to http://www.cnet-ga.ne.jp/kenta/mitsu/mitsu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the name should be changed
After reading some of the scholarship on this subject I think I am going to change the name of this article to "Esoteric Buddhism". Why? Because Vajrayana is usually used to refer only to Tibetan Buddhism and not to the other sects of esoteric Buddhism. In East Asia it is generally not termed Vajrayana but generally phrases which mean something like secret or esoteric are used, or that have to do with the word "mantra" like Shingon and so on.

So to call this article Vajrayana is kind Tibeto-centric and does not reflect the nature of the broader range of traditions being discussed here. And there is already a Tibetan Buddhism article. Javierfv1212 (talk)

I support leaving the name as is. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Vajrayana Buddhism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Vajrayana Buddhism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vajrayana Buddhism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No reason for using Devanagari in Buddhist articles
It seems there are certain users that want to add Devanagari script renditions of terms in numerous articles about Buddhism on Wikipedia. There seems to be no good reason for this, other than perhaps nationalistic or revsionist ones.

Devanagari does not come from the time of the Buddha or from the time of Ashoka (from which date the first Buddhist related inscriptions), as the wki article says it reached regular use by the 7th century CE.

None of the major Buddhist canons (Tibetan, Chinese, Pali) are recorded in Devanagari, they use Chinese, Tibetan script and various South Asian scripts like Sinhala or Burmese. None of the major publications of these canons use Devanagari. Even the Sanskrit Buddhist texts are mostly not published in Devanagari, but use IAST instead. None of the main scholarly publications on Sanskritic Buddhism use Devanagari either, they all use IAST (for example: Siderits and Katsura 's "Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika").

It makes absolutely no sense to put Devanagari in Buddhist articles. For these reasons, I am removing any instance of these that I see.Javierfv1212 15:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Off the face of it that sounds poorly researched. This article is about Vajrayana, its historic roots can be traced to Sanskrit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.238.182 (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually it sounds pretty logical. Therefore I have removed it again. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The word "Vajrayana" is a SANSKRIT word - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Etymology. Also, the Vajrayana tradition has its roots in Northern India of the early medieval period. Devanagari was already in use by that time. I think that warrants a mention of the word in the source language. The texts that User:Javierfv1212 refers to when mentioning the absence of Devanagari are very much older than the Vajrayana source texts. 123.201.91.49 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why use Devanagari script instead of Sanskrit script? And why is any of this relevant for the English Wikipedia? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What Im saying is that by the time Vajrayana emerged Devanagari was being used for Sanskrit. If Devanagari is not required on English Wikipedia then why are the Chinese and Japanese scripts?123.201.91.83 (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Chinese and Japanese often have no standard translations, and in the case of Chinese, multiple transliteration systems. There are many ancient Indic scripts, not just Devanagari. When you start to insert one, soon someone will start to add another one, etc. Perhaps MOS:IS should also be used for all Buddhist articles.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest we should instead use IAST? 123.201.90.2 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Romanization will suffice.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Consort practices
There's a clarification needed. Vajrayana and tantric consort practices are very different than "sex rituals" or "sexual practices". Different purposes, and they are actually incorrect descriptions of consort practices. I've been correcting the error where possible. Note that specific scholars do not use those terms, but other authors with possibly shallower understandings might use those terms. Thoughts? Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Meditation methods
There's a correction made in the comparison/contrast of Mahayana meditation methods and Vajrayana meditation methods. It's correct that samatha - vipassana meditations are used in Mahayana. Those methods generally use an object/concept as a focal point during sitting meditation. But it's incorrect to state the same meditation methods are used during Vajrayana meditation, which adhere to Dzogchen meditation methods without objects/concepts as focal points. Maybe the previous correction wasn't clear enough, since it was addressing meditation. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Undid revert
Undid revert by as per the earlier ping. The RS by the Nyingma scholar is solid on the history of Secret Mantra and Vajrayana. A definitely better source than McMillan on the foundations and later spread of Vajrayana. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For the record, the earlier ping is found here. Without a reply, I respectfully included the edits again. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Deity yoga
Deity yoga should be its own article, as both this article and Tibetan Buddhist practice have long sections on it which should be merged. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Devanagari
@Javierfv1212 said in an edit-comment that "Buddhists never used devanagari", and proceeded to replace devanagari representations of Sanskrit in this article with Brahmi representations. So which Buddhists never used devanagari?

This paper describes translating the Buddhacarita from a devanagari original. it says: "The Buddha-carita or Life of Buddha by Aśvaghoṣa, Indian poet of the early second century after Christ. Sanskrit text, edited from a Devanagari and two Nepalese manuscripts with variant readings, a preface, notes and in index of names."

Doesn't that mean that devanagari was indeed used by Buddhists?

Brahmi script, on the other hand, which the editor seems to favour, while being very ancient and apparently known to the Buddha, isn't mentioned in the Buddhist texts article. No Buddhist texts were written down for a good 200 years anyway, so what the Buddha knew how to write is neither here nor there. There don't seem to be many attestations of Brahmi script at all, in fact, and most of them seem to be fragmentary.

Can I revert this edit?

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Davidson blockquote is too long
The history section includes a long blockquote from Ronald M. Davidson. The quote could be paraphrased ... or deleted altogether. The quote also leans a bit too far into interpretation of cultural origins without providing citations for that interpretation. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)