Talk:Tibetan Buddhism/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emptiness 

message: 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" — 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)
replies: text: The Vajrayana exists in other places besides Tibet -- Notably in the Esoteric Shingon school in Japan Zero sharp 01:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unified with Vajrayana 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Timing 

message: Are Tibetan Buddhist allowed to eat meat? What about nomadic people who practise Tibetan Buddhism? — 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism 

message: notes on Feb 15 2005 copyedits:
* 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
technopilgrim 22:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it should redirect to Nyingma.--Bodhirakshita 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Hat Sect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Lamaism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Esoteric" and "Tantric" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lamaism is most definantly a derogitory term 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Distinguishing characteristics 

message: I propose that we form a wikiproject for Tibetan Buddhism. Would anyone be interested? Sylvain1972 17:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what exactly is a Wikiproject (pardon my igs) and what would it entail ? Zero sharp 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I've joined your project. Good idea. I hope you don't mind. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  what Buddhists call themselves: 'Nangpa' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted Historically Inaccurate Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AD vs. CE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milarepa 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyrighted Material?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bodong and Buton 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly seems to be correct, what Nat says. --Klimov 10:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction outline is incorrect 

message: 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).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Date For Invasion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "omnipresent" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  deleted from "tenet systems" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  synonyms for "Vajrayana" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Buddha Ideal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vajrayana 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Padmasambhava, a Tibetan master 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nyingma 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Milarepa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Buddhist political power 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tibetan terminology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lamrim & lojong 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Padmasambhava & Bön 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bön and other movements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bön deletion 

message: Created a "References" section at the end of the article to enable abbreviated footnotes, as per ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Provide_full_citations>. Not sure yet how to differentiate this section from "Further Reading".
To refer to the same source multiple times in the article we can put full details of it here and then just refer to it in footnotes by author, date and page number. The Wikipedia link above says to have the date without parentheses, so I'll put removing them on the to do.
Moonsell (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  derivation of non-Nyingma 

message: Does anyone have ideas on this?
Moonsell (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be in the introduction? 

message: What do people need to know about Tibetan Buddhism? Does anyone have ideas on this?
Moonsell (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's missing in this article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vajrayana 

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