Talk:Yidam

message: Using a sanskrit name when a perfectly good English phrase exists and is in fairly common use seems to go against WP:Name convention. I really doubt anyone searches under Ishta Deva (Buddhism)... and if they don't add Buddhism they end up on the Hindu page. I'm proposing this page is moved to Meditational deity. Does anyone object? Oh... and any support would also be welcome! Dakinijones (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support that idea!rudy (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea. There is a disambiguous note at the top of the Hindu page. WP:Name doesn't really establish a convention on this one way or another. If we moved the Buddhism one we would have to move the Hinduism one too, and then we would need to either combine them or have a "Meditation deity (Buddhism)" and a "Meditation deity (Hinduism)". Then we would also have to move all sorts of other articles, including "dakini" to "sky-goer" and "annuttara yoga tantra" to "highest union continuity" and so forth. For that matter, "Buddha" would have to be moved to "Awakened One." Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite the point in this case, I am not against some Sanskrit terms. But in Buddhism, it seems that simply nobody uses this term, so it would make more sense to come via a redirect page to a name that is used commonly. The title of a page determines whether a subject is findable for a reader, and "Ishta-deva" is not used by any Buddhist as far as I know.rudy (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the term found in the Buddhist tantras, and it does get used. It may be less familiar than yidam, but I think in the interest of both consistency and primacy we should stick with the Sanskrit as normative for mahayana and vajrayana Indian Buddhist terms. The page is very findable for readers with both a redirect and a disambiguation note. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is the page naming convention per WP:Name is based primarily on reader usuage and not on imposing pre-conceived normative standards. It makes reading the page (all of it, not just the title) highly confusing for anyone - ie, as you identify, the majority - who came for information about yidams. If for some reason yidam is unacceptible then meditational deity will do Dakinijones (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I mean the three roots: "guru", and both "dharmapala" and "dakini." I don't agree that the Tibetan is significantly more prevalent than the Sanskrit. We must remember that we are talking about a phenomenon in both Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. I also don't think people will find it "highly confusing" given that yidam redirects here, the Tibetan "yidam" is given in the first sentence and then discussed in the first following paragraph.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you mention one qualified contemporary tantric buddhist teacher of Indian origin? I can't. 900 years ago I would have agreed with you, since then, Buddhism all but disappeared in India proper. rudy (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Rudyh, the fact that you don't know of any doesn't mean that there aren't any.  Go to West Bengal, if you want to find initiators into the 8 Taras. Of course, you know that Ladakh is filled to the brim with contemporary tantric buddhist teachers - take the current Jangtse Chöje for a start. Or Bakula Rinpoche.... Say what you mean :D (20040302 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a 700-year history of Vajrayana in India. Whether or not their are Indian vajrayana masters now is not particularly relevant. The article about the Buddha is not listed under "Sangye" because there are more Tibetans than Indians these days.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, why are these West Bengals not mentioned under Vajrayana or any source that I can find? References please... Ladakhi are very much into Tibetan Buddhism, they use the Tibetan Buddhist canon, and I doubt if many of them even read Sanskrit - been there, seen it, just like in Sikkhim of course. Also, the 700-year history you mean ended just about 700 year ago in India?rudy (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in English-language Tibetan Buddhist texts, the Buddha is called the Buddha - not Sangye. An English-reading Tibetan Buddhist will be looking for Buddha. The point is not whether a term came originally from Sanskrit, Tibetan or Anglo-Saxon. The point of an English encyclopedia is to offer the term the English reader is most likely to look under. At least according to WP:Name Dakinijones (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just so don't have any opinion on this.  Most current translations do not use either Ishta-deva OR yidam - they commonly use the term 'deity' - which doesn't really work for us here, because it's being used as a technical term, rather than within it's everyday meaning.  Regardless of whether or not the article ends up being Ishta-deva or yidam - or something else, any other relevant link will be redirected to the same article.  Why fuss? (20040302 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm fussing for several reasons. What's on the page at the moment is a mess. The term appears variously as 'Ishta-deva', 'Isha-deva' (I have no idea why) and 'yidam'. Wiki calls it 'Ishta-deva (or variations thereof) whilst our cited reliable sources actually all call it 'yidam' (Although in some contexts it is called 'deity' - actually mostly 'meditational deity'[which could - and should- redirect here] - whenever someone is writing about its technical uses they do mostly call it 'yidam'). Since Wiki calls it something different from the reliable sources it makes Wiki look like we either have no idea what we're talking about or we have some kind of axe to grind and are trying to proove a point. In either case, a reader looking for an encyclopedic resource as a result of coming across the term in academic or Tibetan Buddhist practice texts in English is going to take one look at the title and move along to something else that will better meet their needs for reliable, unbiased information. Dakinijones (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It is simply untrue that no reliable sources use ishta-deva. Pick up Elizabeth English's book on Vajrayogini, or David Gray's books on Chakrasamvara, or any of the Columbia series on tantras, and you'll find it. An instance of a spelling error does not a mess make. In any case, I'm correcting it right now. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing some editing, the page certainly looks better with consistent spelling - it'd be good if we could work on activiely improving this page at the same time as discussing the naming problem. Thanks for offering some reliable sources that use Ishta-deva. I'll need to see if I can check them out as none of them are texts I have at home. Why is it that all the sources refererred to on our page only talk about yidams? That is one of the reasons I called the page a mess. Perhaps you'd like to add suitable quotes from the sources you mentioned? Dakinijones (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I found the Elizabeth English on google books. Elizabeth English book She has neither Ishta-deva nor Yidam in the index. However the words 'yidam' and 'meditational deity' do both appear (as quotations) on p xxv. Google revealed no use of Ishta-deva (although it might appear on pages not publicly available). Clearly, from the index, although she may mention the term in passing she does not address it. If I track down the David Gray and Columbia works am I going to find the same thing? If so, clearly these do not constitute reliable sources in this context. According to WP:Name we should name as reliable sources name... ie those people who actually write about the subject of our page in English Dakinijones (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: English does have ishtadevata - I don't know why it doesn't come up in the source but I'll find it in the book and add it. I've added a lot of other reliable sources, print and online, in the meanwhile.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody doubts that the Sanskrit version of this term is Ishta-deva. What is in doubt is that writers in English ever use the term. They may refer to it (generally in brackets) but in the main body of the text, reliable sources all appear to use the term 'Yidam' or 'Meditational Deity'. WP:Name says we follow their usuage. The sources you have added are only reliable for the Sanskrit being cognate with Yidam - they are not reliable sources for how the term is used in the English language Dakinijones (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:Name does not list that as the only consideration. And the problem with that is that the most popular usuage by far in English is simply "deity," not "meditational deity," which is rarely used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for explanation of why this is a problem. The difference in usage between yidam and devata or ishtadeva is marginal, and futhermore yidam is only used in Tibetan sources, whereas ishtadevata is not, which makes it less of a biased term. It makes more sense to go with the Sanskrit original. Not only does this provide consistency with the other three jewels and three roots, but it also has the advantage of not perpetuating the false conception that we are talking about a strictly Tibetan phenomena. The term ishtadevata has an equivalent (and was the basis of terms) in China, Korea, Japan and all East Asian countries with Vajrayana traditions. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote "The Ishta-deva appears as one of the Three Roots in the Vajrayana Buddhist 'Inner' refuge formulation." Do you have a source for that? rudy (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Ishta-deva never appears as one of the Three Roots. Try googling it ;-) Regarding precision - it says "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase.". The more popular phrase is - by far - either Yidam or Meditation Deity. No-one uses the Sanskrit... they simply note the term in passing. WP:Name says clearly that we go with common usuage. Dakinijones (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that it isn't? We have already established that it is, and you haven't addressed my point about keeping the article  inclusive to non-Tibetan traditions. Are you contending that Ishadeva is not the proper Sanskrit for Yidam, that Yidam is not one of the three roots, or that the three roots are exclusively Tibetan? Tell me which point you are making and I will give you a source to refute it. You did not address my earlier point in response at all, so I will repeat it: WP:Name does not list that as the only consideration. And the problem with that is that the most popular usuage by far in English is simply "deity," not "meditational deity," which is rarely used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for explanation of why this is a problem. The difference in usage between yidam and devata or ishtadeva is marginal, and futhermore yidam is only used in Tibetan sources, whereas ishtadevata is not, which makes it less of a biased term. It makes more sense to go with the Sanskrit original. Not only does this provide consistency with the other three jewels and three roots, but it also has the advantage of not perpetuating the false conception that we are talking about a strictly Tibetan phenomena. The term ishtadevata has an equivalent (and was the basis of terms) in China, Korea, Japan and all East Asian countries with Vajrayana traditions. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would love to keep this page inclusive. That's why I suggested "meditation deity" which is inclusive for all traditions since it's the English language term. We need a page that is accessible to readers and to all traditions. Ishta-deva doesn't work for that - which is why English language writers talk about the term as either meditation deity or yidam. Most of the sources you've quoted - including ones like the English and Patrul Rinpoche that you've cited as supposedly supporting your POV actually are proof that the term used is most certainly not the Sanskrit. All the quotes on our page support the fact the the Sanskrit is not used. You've yet to provide one quote of a writer in English using the Sanskrit - and I'm not going to check each of the sources you've cited because on the several occasions I have checked your sources they prooved the opposite of what you said they would. You'll need to quote the text here for me to believe it because past experience is making me wary of wasting my time. Dakinijones (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply not the case. My sources have consistently backed up what I've said, as do the ones below. "meditation deity" or "meditational deity" is not the English language term--it seems to be rarely used. You haven't given much evidence for it's usage, for that matter. The English term that is most often used is simply "deity," which would satisfy WP:Name except that it fails Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). That is why Ishta-deva is preferable.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, I immediately found a site that does use the Sansrkit in the three roots formulation without mentioning yidam at all: . Here is another one that contradictions what you assert, found right away: . Look at the RangjungYesheWiki, which I did not edit, which gives the Sanskrit with the Tibetan only in parens. Here is an instance from Dzongsar Khysentse Rinpoche's website where he gives the Sanskrit without the Tibetan at all, .  There are many many sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose name change

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

message: So in general - it says above from WP:Name - we optomise for readers over editors and for usuage in reliable sources in English. Nowhere does it mention going for consistency.
Nobody seems to be arguing with the fact that most users will be searching for yidam.
I'd like to see some evidence that reliable sources use the term with any frequency. The vast majority of English writing is from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and as far as I'm aware they say yidam or - more rarely - meditational deity. Academics writing about the tradition also use yidam in preference to Ishta-deva as far as I'm aware. 
So the question is: which reliable sources - if any - use the term Ishta-Deva in preference to yidam? Dakinijones (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Convention

message: My understanding is very poor in this area, but isn't it so that the 'secret' tends to refer to the subtle body - and when referring to a three-fold formulation, it is more normal to refer to the basis, path and fruit anyway? If this is a rendering of the four-fold formulation of outer/inner/secret/ultimate, then surely the trikaya belongs to  the ultimate refuge, not the secret.  I don't have a published source to hand but I'm pretty certain that the secret refuge would normally be channels, winds and drops?  
An early translation of Milarepa states "Breath, nervous energy and life-force are three. these three are the secret refuge.  I delight in taking refuge in them"
"The Stages of A-khrid Meditation: Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition - Page 33": "The secret (refuge) being the psychic channel, wind and bindu ..."
Also, Patrul Rinpoche states, in the Way of Great Perfection: "Crownned with the Three Jewels of the outer refuge, You have truly realised the three roots, the inner refuge; You have made manifest the three kayas, the ultimate refuge." - So here the identification of the Trikaya as being anything other than the ultimate refuge is refuted by Patrul Rinpoche himself. ( google of relevant page  )
Tthe Rigpa wiki concurs with me - Rigpa's page
So this suggests that it is wrong regardless of tradition.  I will make the changes accordingly
(20040302 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, I see that table of the three roots on the article has gone back to what I corrected it, with no reason given.  Therefore, I shall revert. If any editor wishes to dispute this change, just write something down first! (20040302 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3 Roots: Secret Refuge vs Ultimate Refuge

message: ETHER??? DUDE WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT ELEMENT FOR VAIROCHANA...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.89.39 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be because the positions of  Akshobhya and  Vairochana  are transposed in many mandalas. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ether??? 

message: As Sanskrit equivalents for yi dam (ཡི་དམ)
Lokesh Chandra's (1976)  Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (p.२१४८ ) gives समादान [samādāna]
The སཾ་བོད་རྒྱ་གསུམ་ཤན་སྦྱར་གྱི་ཚིག་མཛོད། (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary)(p 615)  gives: སམཱདཱནི - ཡི་དམ།  [samādāni]
and Jeffery Hopkins gives: samādānatva.
Iṣṭadevatā is not found as the equivalent to yi dam (ཡི་དམ) in any reliable dictionary - and it seems 
Iṣṭadevatā is not at all a term actually used in Buddhist texts.
The citations currently used in the article to try and show Iṣṭadevatā is equivalent to Yidam seem to be very outdated and weak in comparison to these dictionaries.
The use of "Iṣṭadevatā" for Yidam just seems to be one of those many bits of misinformation left over from the 19th C / early 20th C assumption of an equivalence between Buddhist tantra and Hinduism (or that Buddhist tantra is the result of the "corruption" of Buddhism by Hinduism) which continue to be perpetuated. This really needs sorting out.
 
Chris Fynn (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanskrit equivalents for Yidam 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) →  – This article was previously moved from it's original title "Yidam" to "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism)" on grounds of consistency with other related articles which have titles derived from Sanskrit - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page  here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually used in Buddhism and found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it does occur in some outdated western books which conflate Buddhist tantra with Hinduism).   The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism - so I am requesting a move back to the original title: Yidam. for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME     Chris Fynn (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I've been unable to find a consistent Sanskrit term which is an equivalent for Yidam in the sense of a meditation or pledged deity. Of course Tibetan translators frequently translated several Sanskrit terms by a single Tibetan term - not surprising since Sanskrit has more than double the vocabulary (but Tibetan makes up for this because it is a highly contextual language, the same word can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is used).  I'd say "Yidam" has already entered the English language - at least in the area Buddhist studies. If people want to use Sanskrit for consistency, I'm not opposed, - but please come up with a proper Sanskrit term that is not a artificial concoction or artificially borrowing a Hindu term which has misleading non-Buddhist connotations. If we are going to do this we may as well use "angel" for yidam and "Trinity" for the Three Jewels (which some translators have done in the past). Please remember that Sanskrit is not used as a primary language of study by any living Buddhist tradition - except, to a small extent, by Newar Buddhists. Some scholars say that for centuries Tibetan the lingua-franca for Buddhist studies throughout most of east and central Asia.  Chris Fynn (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibetan was never a lingua-franca for Buddhist studies in East Asia. I don't know where you got that idea. And yidam, whether or not it has entered the English language, is used only in the Tibetan context. Further, it is extremely common--standard actually--to use Sanskrit as a lingua franca for academic studies of Buddhism--which is just what this article is. Certainly it makes no sense to talk about historical Indian vajrayana practitioners using yidams, or Japanese, etc. I think it would be better to use "meditation deity" than yidam, if you aren't comfortable using a Sanskrit term.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Thank goodness. This debate exhausted me back in 2008 and was one of the reasons I wasn’t around in 2014 to support the requested move. I wish I’d known the route to seek a request to move back then but like many editors I have limited time and health to put into understanding how things work behind the scenes. Thank you to everyone who devoted time and thought into resolving what had been such a long running impasse on editing this page. Dakinijones (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 December 2014 

message: *Support - Yidam is obviously the common name.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: (Please place any discussion on the proposal in this section.)
 Your page move edit summary  was truncated. Can you formally close this with the non-truncated reason? Also note that an oppose !vote has been posted since you moved this. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been unable to find a consistent Sanskrit term which is an equivalent for Yidam in the sense of a meditation or pledged deity. Of course Tibetan translators frequently translated several Sanskrit terms by a single Tibetan term - not surprising since Sanskrit has more than double the vocabulary (but Tibetan makes up for this because it is a highly contextual language, the same word can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is used).  I'd say "Yidam" has already entered the English language - at least in the area Buddhist studies. If people want to use Sanskrit for consistency, I'm not opposed, - but please come up with a proper Sanskrit term that is not a artificial concoction or artificially borrowing a Hindu term which has misleading non-Buddhist connotations. If we are going to do this we may as well use "angel" for yidam and "Trinity" for the Three Jewels (which some translators have done in the past). Please remember that Sanskrit is not used as a primary language of study by any living Buddhist tradition - except, to a small extent, by Newar Buddhists. Some scholars say that for centuries Tibetan the lingua-franca for Buddhist studies throughout most of east and central Asia.  Chris Fynn (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibetan was never a lingua-franca for Buddhist studies in East Asia. I don't know where you got that idea. And yidam, whether or not it has entered the English language, is used only in the Tibetan context. Further, it is extremely common--standard actually--to use Sanskrit as a lingua franca for academic studies of Buddhism--which is just what this article is. Certainly it makes no sense to talk about historical Indian vajrayana practitioners using yidams, or Japanese, etc. I think it would be better to use "meditation deity" than yidam, if you aren't comfortable using a Sanskrit term.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
Thank goodness. This debate exhausted me back in 2008 and was one of the reasons I wasn’t around in 2014 to support the requested move. I wish I’d known the route to seek a request to move back then but like many editors I have limited time and health to put into understanding how things work behind the scenes. Thank you to everyone who devoted time and thought into resolving what had been such a long running impasse on editing this page. Dakinijones (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yidam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322072203/http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_practice.html to http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_practice.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Tibetan Buddhism, deities are not self-existing entities like gods. Each yidam both came from a practice text, possibly a terma, and is generated by practice. Each yidam has its own Body, Speech, and Mind. The body is the visualized form, the Speech is their sadhana and mantra, the Mind is their inherent Enlightened nature. To not include the practice category is to reduce the deity to an imaginary being, despite the fact the practice itself is part and parcel of the deity. Tibetan Buddhists speak of "practicing Vajrayogini" or "becoming Padmasambhava." If each Yidam were not itself a distinct practice, Vajrayana would be pointless. I'd point you to deity yoga, a major element of Tibetan Buddhism, but for some reason it's a redirect to a more general article. Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Editor2020 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . You're welcome. When I get a moment, I'll probably split out an article on Deity yoga, as it seems to be covered in Vajrayana as well and we shouldn't have two different presentations in two different articles... Other traditions (Bon?) probably practice it as well, so it's it probably not exclusive Buddhist or exclusively Tibetan. Skyerise (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practice category