Talk:Women in Buddhism

message: Maybe we can add a section about women in Chinese Chan Buddhism? because of that:
*MO-SHAN LIAO-JAN First Woman Dharma Heir In Chinese Zen Buddhism
*WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition by Heng-Ching Shih (Advisor of Committee of Western Bhikshunis)
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.223 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.200 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe

message: *When a Woman Becomes a Religious Dynasty. The Samding Dorje Phagmo of Tibet
"Chokyi Dronma [1422-1455] not only persuaded one of the highest spiritual teachers of her era to give her full ordination but also established orders for other women practitioners and became so revered that she was officially recognized as one of the two prinicpal spiritual heirs to her main master."
-- 88.72.13.10 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women as Dharma heirs 

message: The First Buddhist Women: Translations and Commentaries on the Therigatha Author: Susan Murcott,  According to table of contents there is a chapter about mothers.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.198.250 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.149 (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.175 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.90 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.229 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: DakiniJones, you've changed the previous text into the following: "According to Thubten Chodron, the current Dalai Lama has said on this issue:" why?
;Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.82 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style? 

message: To my knowledge, there is no sexuality perspective on Women and Buddhism - and neither does sexuality as such appear to be an academic discipline in the sense of the other perspectives cited here with wiki links. Perhaps what you've got in mind could be achieved by a section on sexuality and Buddhism? That would link nicely with the section on motherhood. If you have some sources please do feel free to create such a section as I'd be happy to see it. When we get round to including a specific section on feminism and Buddhism, I'm sure that sexuality will be a theme there too. I agree the subject needs to appear in the article but I'd argue that it's not so much a perspective that needs mentioning in the lead section as a theme that needs to appear in the body of the article.--Dakinijones (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.209 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sexuality perspective 

message: "When there is a talk about women and Buddhism, I have noticed that people often regard the topic as something new and different. They believe that women in Buddhism has become an important topic because we live in modern times and so many women are practicing the Dharma now. However, this is not the case. The female sangha has been here for centuries. We are not bringing something new into a twenty-five hundred-year-old tradition. The roots are there, and we are simply re-energizing them.[3]"
Really, I don't know whom she is talking about, what people. Buddhist, non-buddhist, male, female? Does she talk about the universal buddhist female sangha? Whom and what is she angry about? What kind of roots we are simply reenergizing?
Maybe you cannot answer those questions of mine, but for sure you can tell me what you have chosen this quotation for. Do you?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.107 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.11 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotating Khandro Rinpoche == 

message: * 
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.219.88 (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Tibetan Buddhist Tulkus and Emanations
    * Khandro Rinpoche[30]
    * Tsultrim Allione
Two people have been deleted, I don't have an idea for what reason. The title has been changed, what for?
Has this been you, Dakinijones?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.202.239 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something lacking 

message: *http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.bodh.html - Soma, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi
*http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.than.html - Sister Soma, Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
*http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.olen.html - Mara Meets His Match, Translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki
*This short sutta is a groundbreaking expression of a woman's (nun's) awareness/consciousness of equality during times of Buddha Shakyamuni.
oh...
to change something for clarity you first have to understand the topic.
I don't try to discuss with you any more.
:Austerlitz -- 92.78.137.151 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Soma Sutta from [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html Discourses of the Ancient Nuns(Bhikkhuni-samyutta)]

message: The Types of Buddha article defines Samyaksambuddha in a way that would not cover Yeshe Tsogyal's type of Buddhahood. The term appears to be reserved for founders of Buddhism - Gautama being 4th in the current line. The article Buddhahood says: "perfectly self-enlightened (Skt: samyak-saṃbuddha". This is not viewed as necessary for Buddhahood in the Vajrayana. I've no idea what the sanskrit term used to describe Yeshe Tsogyal is - although from the article it appears that the Pali Canon term "anubuddha" might apply. Translations of Tibetan works simply say "fully-enlihtened Buddha" and I don't know what term is being translated there. Do you have any sources to back up using samyak-saṃbuddha/Samyaksambuddha in this context? I've searched but found nothing useful... I'd really like to know what term the Tibetans are using in this context just for my own interest but we also need to be sure we're being accurate. --Dakinijones (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.130 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samyaksambuddha in women and Buddhahood 

message: *www.nitartha.org search page:
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.205 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.205 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words 

message: That Link 
*^ MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA III III. 2. 5. Bahudhaatukasutta.m-(115) The Discourse on Many Elements
doesn't work anymore. As far as I have noticed, there is no other link with the same text available online. At least until now I could not find another translation.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.80 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.80 (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: "The Soma Sutta, as part of the Pali Canon, is considered to be buddhavacana, or the words of an enlightened one. Since the Pali Canon is accepted by both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists as buddhavacana, this is considered to be mainstream Buddhist philosophy[citation needed]."
Tenzin Palmo somewhere stated that the Gelugpa are the buddhist people best trained in intellectual debate. Most probably somewhere they must have debated the idea of women being of "minor birth". What is the explanation given by them?
:-- 83.236.99.253 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.216.194 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.50 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.168 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.68 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core of the matter 

message: There is a current project from Nalanda Translation Committee, founded by Chogyam Trungpa, Eliminating Gender-Biased Language.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.101 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words 

message: There is a secton mentioning the "Bahudhātuka-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya in the Pali Canon", saying this sutta decrees the limitations of women in certain roles; "King of Death" for instance. The statement uses a link to what appears to be a realtively poor translation. I therefore wonder if the 'impossibilities' mentioned in this sutta arise from grammatical limitations (i.e. gender-based titles and nouns) than spiritual or gender limitations. I also wonder if a better translation or the sutta in its original language might either support or undermine this section's conclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.201.189 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -- 88.75.212.19 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.25 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Meaning 

message: Quote from the article's site: "...in Buddhism the image of the mother as the embodiment of compassion is used a lot."
Sorry, but this is not true at all.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.201 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother of compassion? 

message: What's with the strange "6 major points" part of this article? This is about women in buddism, not what some anonymous author thinks Buddha would do... "it is undoubtedly clear that the Buddha affirmed the ability of women to attain complete spiritual development."
This is about Buddhism... not Budda... and what's the source of all this stuff? It's clearly a soapbox section. It needs to be removed per WP:NPOV and probably many other WP policies. --Retran (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "six major points" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Women in Buddhism. 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/20081009010407/http://taramandala.com:80/Article_Mothering.htm to http://www.taramandala.com/Article_Mothering.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080614062025/http://www.shambhalasun.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3219&Itemid=336 to http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3219&Itemid=336
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's not that important, but I guess  Guan Yin Statue is smaller than Statue of Liberty. All the best! --DiHri (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guan Yin

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Currently the section on Early Buddhism refers to a number of studies that are either generalist or from scholars who specialize in later forms of Buddhism. In addition, they are quite out of date. Gender studies in early Buddhism has been an active field in the past couple of decades. It would be good to more accurately reflect the current state of the field. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.80.139 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on early Buddhism should quote from experts in the field 

message: The current article is a mish-mash of unsourced and original research making very vague points - and serving as an index to other more relevant pages. The quality is extremely low to the point of being nonsense, and it seems like the point of the full article is to try to validate or rehabilitate women in buddhism - Not cover the encyclopedic entries regarding actual women in buddhism.
It reads like a religious-political statement loaded with agendas, not like a neutral sourced encyclopedic article. --2A02:AA7:4009:CD8A:409C:C020:AAA7:8B29 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion