Talk:Tibetan Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Tibetan Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Tibetan Buddhism and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. 
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] What school is tibetan buddhism from?
I've been trying to figure this out lately. Is it the Mahayana or Vajrayāna? Is it a combination? Is it not a combination? Does it use certain practices from each? I'm somewhat lost about the school its from and its origins. Does Tibetan Buddhism not associate itself with directly one school of thought? In other words, is it simply a clashing of different teachings into one unified religion? I really think if that it is in this wikientry, it's not very clear. That's why the term Lamaism is bothering me. I'm sure someone said the word has Chinese origins, but Tibet is not in China. Because Tibet is in China, I don't see why it's called Lamism. - User: Cyberman (not logged in)
Vajrayana is not divided from Mahayana in Tibet, although not all Mahayanists are Vajrayanists per se. The Tibetan tradition was rich and complete in systems of philosophical Buddhist argument, tending toward the Indian style of Buddhism rather than the Sinitic. There are traditional elements of the native Bon faith included to varying degrees as well. Lamaism was a term applied by early European academics familiar with only other forms of Buddhism such as Theraveda and the Mahayana of other nations (as Tibet was a closed nation for many years), and lacking any training or expertise in the mantrayana, so really the use of the term is an ethnocentrically derived relic without any sound basis in thought. It has been used at times as a dismissive epithet, in much the same way as some have inexactly considered the Theravedin traditions to be "Hinayana". The word 'lama' is Tibetan and isequivalent to the Sanskrit 'guru'. Tibet is as much a part of China as Hawaii has historically been part of the United States, but with more historical conflict. If diplomacy had worked out slightly differently Tibet might have been a British protectorate. Dorje0000 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are at least a couple valid ways of relating the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana as taught in Tibetan Buddhism. Kalu Rinpoche uses the analogy of a house where the Hinayana discipline is the solid foundation, the Mahayana is the infrastructure and the Vajrayana is the rest of the house. (Luminous Mind : Fundamentals of Spiritual Practice, Wisdom Publications, 1996, ISBN 0-86171-118-1) Also, Vajrayana has been described as a set of set of skillful Mahayana meditation practices.
- An American Lama in the Tibetan Buddist Tradition joked with me once that Lamaism might actually be an appropriate term considering how important the student-teacher relationship is in Tibetan Buddism. So, while I suggest that Dorje0000 is correct to say that Lamaism is an ethnocentrically derived relic,I would disagree that it is without sound basis in thought. Having said this, the Lama was joking with me and I would never in a million years suggest calling Tibetan Buddhism, Lamaism.
- David Picariello 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AD vs. CE
CE for Common Era is an accepted, non-denominational alternative to 'AD' (which stands for Anno Domini and is explicitly Christian). I don't feel that 'CE' is "wrong" particularly in an article about a non-Christian religion. Zero sharp 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Milarepa
I have added now, for the second time, a reference to Milarepa in 'See Also' on the 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. Please tell me why you consider 'Milarepa' to be an inappropriate reference but Mo-ho-yen, who is Chinese, is an appropriate reference. Also, please explain why you consider removing 'Milarepa' to be an 'improve to list'. Jem bac 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because as I said, we can't list everybpdy. I added a link to Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, where Mila and everybody else can be easily found. The category system is your friend. Use it! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- With respect to Mo-ho-yen, he was already there, I didn't add him. His article says the his defeat was "pivotal to Tibetan Buddhism" and he is not listed under the Tibetan Buddhist teachers category. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
as I said
Thank you Ms. E -- the operative phrase here is "as I said". And just WHO are you? You have every right to edit any article. You could question the notability of Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' if you so chose and move the reference to the Category "Other Assorted Theories" because 'We can't list them ALL'.
Your consideration of Milarepa as "We can't list EVERYBODY" in Tibetan Buddhism is telling. One Google result refers to Milarepa as -- Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism. I will not add it again because a third reversal of an edit could trigger mediation.
And as long as you have found the time to edit MY articles and additions, you should find the time to clean up your own. As one person wrote on your Vajrayana entry: "How can anyone trust someone who explains the terms so poorly?" Your entry is currently tagged: This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations" and has been so tagged since July 2006. But I notice that your Vajrayana internal link in 'See Also' stays put.
You are tampering with legends. 125.24.163.195 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac
- Um, I didn't write any substantial part of Vajrayana. Also, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Oh, and don't forget to login, and you don't OWN "your" article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Your own page says: "I noticed there is no article on Vajravarahi so I started one." You are right -- I do not own anything. EVERYBODY owns it and, so far, you are the only one who has revised any of my contributions. I did not attack you personally -- I only questioned your credibility Jem bac 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)jem_bac
I have now read no personal attacks including the section on Examples that are not personal attacks. No personal attacks were involved. I asked you for your rationale and you offered none beyond "Because as I said, we can't list everybody"
Mo-ho-yen is OK but Milarepa is not. Mo-ho-yen wasn't even Tibetan. The 'See Also' list thus already had an historical figure -- I was not the first to add one to the list.
- "Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism."
http://bodhisattvas.tribe.net/photos/8261bfd6-ed9d-45cd-ae1f-caf6b0398df1
- "... as witnessed by Tibet's patron saint Milarepa, who was very much assisted by his guru Marpa..." http://oaks.nvg.org/wm3ra19.html
- "Nine hundred years after his death, Milarepa remains one of Tibet's most beloved saints and prolific poets." http://www.milarepamovie.com/
So I will leave the page alone for now. If I choose to re-instate the Milarepa listing -- for the third time -- under 'See Also' I will request a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and maybe {{Expert}} Thank you. Jem bac 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac
- I have to ask you, Jem bac, why it is so important to add Milarepa. Yes, he is a significant figure... to the Kagyu school. But other schools have their own significant figures. Padmasambhava is not listed. Tsongkhapa is not listed. Once one is listed, how many others will have to be listed? But all three are listed under Category:Lamas which is accessible from the Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, so listing them would be redundant. I could perhaps see your argument if you were arguing for a "short list" of important figures, but you are only arguing for one. That doesn't seem to me to adhere to WP:NPOV - it biases the see also list in favor of a particular school. Even the Dalai Lama is not listed here, why is it so essential to list Mirarepa? A Ramachandran 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Points are well taken. I am working on just such a "short" list -- maybe 10 or less -- tentatively called "Legendary Tibetan Buddhist Personages". Legendary meaning historical, not contemporary. The list is being compiled with the help of a native Tibetan-speaking Geshe with a USA University appointment. It will be irresepctive of school or affiliation. My rationale is to make it so that persons who visit the Tibetan Buddhism main page, and may be exploring Tibetan Buddhism for the first time, will not have to dig deep or read through text to meet the pre-eminent personages including those you mention. And I am open to any suggestions.
Milarepa is now 2 levels deep from the main page under 'Lamas'...and it is quite a grab-bag page. As a person new to WIKIPEDIA, I maybe too casually added some names to a list. I am now trying to structure my reasons for adding any name to a list or creating a new list with greater rigor.
As you will note, Steven Seagal, with no disrepect intended, has a full paragraph write-up on the main 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. WIKIPEDIA has its detractors. Is this a serious attempt at an open encyclopedia or a version of PEOPLE magazine? Such prioritization can only give fodder to WIKIPEDIA critics. I thank you for your comments Jem bac 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac
- I think this is a good solution. And I agree that Steven Seagal is overemphasisd on this page (there was an editor around a while ago who devoted himself exclusively to making edits about Steven Seagal; that may be the cause). By the way, it would be excellent if you could get your Tibetan Geshe friend to look over some of our Tibetan-language-related articles and naming conventions, etc.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got huge problems with pretty much the entire content of this Wikipedia entry. It's obviously not written by someone with any expertise in Tibetan Buddhism, it's also obviously not written by a Tibetan Buddhist. People would be far better off going to something like the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) website for accurate information on what this tradition is all about. Otherwise, get one of the many excellent introductory books around (eg, B. Alan Wallace's Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up). This page makes it seem like some sort of obscure, exotic religion, not a living, practical, logical philosophy (which is what it is). At present I've not the time nor the inclination to rewrite this - anyway, I think it better for people to simply to go other information on the web that is far more accurate/authoritative. Besides, I fear that any rewrite would be taken down and reverted to the poor quality article currently posted. Wikipedia is full of useful, seemingly accurate information, but as this entry shows, there are certainly exceptions. So one certainly shouldn't believe everything one reads here.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.11.72.4 (talk • contribs). Zero sharp 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
